The “In Over Our
Heads” Phenomenon: Implications for Leading
Institutional Change
Charles S. Claxton, Ph.D.,
Professor, Higher Education
Karen Luke Jackson, Educator
Some community colleges are making significant strides towards becoming learning colleges, but the work is very difficult and many efforts to build learning capacities in organizations and to bring about institutional change fail (Senge 1999). The following steps illustrate:
1. The executive leadership team generates a vision of the needed change;
2. The team then works with others at the college to get buy-in;
3. The team and others identify barriers to the desired change; and
4. Together they develop strategies to eliminate or minimize the barriers.
This model of change seems very reasonable. The only problem is that it doesn't work (Kegan and Lahey 2001). Why not? Because shared mental models hold in place present ways of operating. New models are required if there is to be sustained institutional change.
"Mental models are the images, assumptions, and
stories which we carry in our minds of ourselves, other people, institutions,
and every aspect of the world" (Senge et al. 1994, 235). Some of the
assumptions that anchor a mental model exist below our level of awareness. Even
after we have surfaced the assumptions, changing them can be difficult, even
wrenching. To bring about change, community college leaders need to be able to
surface, share, and test their own mental models. They also need to foster work
contexts in which others can do the same.
The
“In Over Our Heads” Phenomenon
In his 1994 book entitled In Over Our Heads, Harvard’s Robert Kegan identified six stages of development that persons go through from birth to death. Stages 3, 4, and 5 characterize adulthood and can be thought of as increasingly complex systems of meaning. The system of meaning an individual has at any given time is comprised of mental models. Learning and development involves examining our present mental models and, where appropriate, creating new ones. A brief synopsis of Kegan’s research regarding stages and mental demands of modern life provides insight about why we may feel like we are drowning when faced with yet another change initiative.
In Stage 3, the first developmental stage in adulthood, persons can move back and forth between their own points of view and the perspectives of others. They are also able to develop relationships of trust, thus mutuality is the hallmark trait of this stage. Every stage, including this one, is worthy of respect, but each has its limitations. The images, stories, and assumptions people in Stage 3 hold about anything—including the way their community college operates—have been absorbed primarily from outside authority. Because these individuals are fused with or embedded in their mental models, they have great difficulty standing aside from and evaluating them.
Self-authorship is the distinguishing trait of persons in Stage 4. They have now developed a sense of their own identity, apart from outside authority. They are able to reflect on their mental models, be responsible for them, evaluate them, and make changes, if they so choose. Self-transformation characterizes persons in Stage 5. They are open to inquiry and questioning from others concerning the very principles upon which they live their lives. Persons in Stage 4 cannot do this. According to Kegan, only a small percentage of adults are at Stage 5.
To ascertain the intellectual demands the culture is placing on adults, Kegan analyzed leading edge research on several domains in people’s lives, including work, relationships, parenting, and adult education. Two of his findings are particularly relevant for this discussion of institutional change. First, the demands of today's society call for the abilities of Stage 4, yet one-half to two-thirds of adults in the United States have not fully reached that stage. Second, there is no correlation between one's educational level and developmental stage. Based on these findings, we can conclude that much of the stress of modern life, including that experienced by persons in community colleges, is due to the fact that we are "in over our heads."
Although Kegan’s data cannot be generalized with precision to higher education professionals as a group, we are making the assumption that organizational life in many colleges is characterized more by Stage 3 thinking and behavior than by that of Stage 4. We base this premise, first, on Kegan’s finding that a majority of adults in the United States are in the third stage of development. Second, developmental theory tells us that when we are faced with ambiguity or threat, we often revert temporarily to a previous stage. As a result, we think and act in ways inconsistent with our true selves.
The problem facing leaders now comes into focus. Institutional change requires new mental models, but persons in Stage 3 have difficulty examining their present assumptions and moving to new ones. Leaders with a "power over" orientation can order, cajole, or pressure colleagues to buy into new mental models. The result, however, will be compliance, not commitment. Just as a teacher cannot force students into more advanced levels of thinking, a leader cannot force persons who work in the college to do so, either. As long as present images, assumptions, and stories remain in place, sustained institutional change is unlikely. So how can leaders surface, share, and test their own mental models and create the opportunity for others to do the same?
The community college work setting provides a rich context in which to address this challenge. Leaders can begin exploring their own mental models by reflecting upon how they work in light of research on good practices. One approach is Parker Palmer’s formation model, now being piloted by the Center for Formation in the Community College. “Formation is the process of creating a quiet, focused and disciplined space” in which our inner teacher can inform our outer work (CFCC 2002). It involves setting aside assumptions, sharing stories, asking open, honest questions, and wrestling with paradox as we seek to connect role and soul (Palmer 1998, 2000).
Another approach leaders might employ is described in Kegan and Lahey’s book How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We Work (2001). Through the use of different language forms, these authors help us surface assumptions in our mental models – assumptions which, because we are unaware of them, often preclude the very change to which we say we are committed.
We can also surface mental models if we confront models different from our own. A framework set forth by Chris Argyris and Donald Schön (1996), which identifies five values and describes two models of behavior for each, can be used in this way. The five values are ones often espoused in the community college workplace: help and support, respect for others, strength, honesty, and integrity. Persons can share the same value, but accompanying behavior may differ depending upon each person's underlying assumptions. Looking at two of the values Argyris and Schön discuss will demonstrate the different behaviors described in their two models.
Help and support in the first model means giving approval and praise to colleagues and telling them what would make them feel good about themselves. In the second, help and support means encouraging others to confront their own ideas and face unsurfaced assumptions and fears. In model one, persons demonstrate strength by advocating their position in order to win. They believe that feeling vulnerable is a sign of weakness. In the second model, persons advocate their position, but combine their advocacy with inquiry and self-reflection. They believe that feeling vulnerable while encouraging inquiry is a sign of strength.
Using the two models provided by Argyris and Schön, persons who work in a community college can surface, share, and test their mental models related to these values at four levels. Level 1 describes a small step on the part of one individual, whereas Level 4 presents a very complex undertaking on the part of an existing team or work group. Members can start at any level they choose. However, the mental models each of us holds are often linked to issues that are quite personal. Sharing them in an institutional setting can be risky. Starting with Level I and slowly moving through the other levels in sequence is the safest approach. As they do so, members can gradually deepen the sense of trust needed for this kind of work.
An individual keeps a journal, recording one’s own personal behavior and that of colleagues, and compares the observed behavior with that described in Argyris and Schön’s two models. Journal entries can focus on one value, such as strength, or address multiple values at the same time. This application requires about 15 minutes at the end of each day for jotting down reflections.
The person recruits a trusted colleague who has also engaged in the reflective journaling exercise. They meet once a week to share key insights or questions from their journal entries. They may find that in earlier periods of their careers some of their behavior looked very much like that described in Argyris and Schön's first model. Explicitly understanding and sharing the fact that they have moved beyond that behavior is worthwhile in and of itself. They may also find, however, that their behavior is unlike the description in the second model. To return to the dimension of strength, one might say to a colleague, “I will advocate my position, but I’m not comfortable having others probe into the reasoning which led to my position. Given some of the problems we have had this past year in my unit, that’s too risky.” This person is describing the discrepancy between the desired behavior (the second model's description of strength) and the actual behavior. This experience of discrepancy, when encountered in a supportive work setting, can foster development as depicted by the Kegan framework. It also sharpens a person’s understanding of one’s own mental models about how to work together effectively.
Here a small group of people, who have engaged in the activities described in Levels 1 and 2, meet monthly to talk about questions that emerge from related readings and their behavior in light of Argyris and Schön's models. In this way members can find connections (and disconnections) between the insights derived from outside readings and those that come from the subjective experiences of group members.
In this most challenging level, members of an existing leadership team or work group agree to monitor their behavior in light of the two models. They focus on their regular work, but use the last segment of each meeting to ask, “How are we doing?” The group might agree, for example, that one person will share observations concerning her or his behavior in the meeting in light of a value such as help and support. Alternatively, the group might ask the question, “What is keeping us from more fully employing the behaviors described in Argyris and Schön’s second model?” As members move forward, they can try out behaviors that are more consistent with that approach. They can also begin to explore underlying images, assumptions, and stories about other college-related matters and develop shared mental models more supportive of institutional change.
Community colleges that embrace the mission of continuous learning and development for their students can only be successful if faculty, administrators, staff, and trustees understand, are committed to, and live out the notion of learning and development for themselves. Therefore, leaders need to create a context that supports the growth of the people who work there. Surfacing, sharing, and testing mental models is a reflective practice which fosters individual growth and addresses the “in over our heads” phenomenon. Leaders engaging in this new work will generate a greater capacity within themselves and their institutions to serve students and sustain the institutional change they seek.
References
Argyris, C., and D. A. Schön. 1996. Organizational learning II. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Center for Formation in the Community College (CFCC). 2002. Formation brochure. Retrieved from: http://www.league.org/league/projects/formation/brochure.html on 06/10/2002.
Kegan, R. 1994. In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kegan, R., and L. L. Lahey. 2001. How the way we talk can change the way we work: Seven languages for transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Palmer, P. J. 1998. The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
_____. 2000. Let your life speak: Listening for the voice of vocation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. M., A.
Kleiner, C. Roberts, R. B. Ross, and B. Smith. 1994.
The
fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning
organization.
New
York: Doubleday..
Senge, P. M., A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R. Ross, G. Roth, and B. Smith. 1999. The dance of change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations. New York: Doubleday.