Simulations of individual achievement dynamics are very similar to those for organizational achievement with the following differences. 

1. There are more random elements.  This tends to alter decision making dynamics.  It is more difficult to see the cause and effect relationships. 
2. Want dynamics change.  Some wants change slower and some wants change faster than we generally find in groups.  The link between passion and action becomes more central in decision making and achievement.  Most importantly we need to deal more directly with the fundamental human wants in a more direct way. 
3. It is more difficult to forecast the behavior of a single individual than that of a group.  Within group activities individuals tend to make their behavior predictable so that they can work effectively with others.  This applies less often in the individual setting.  Statistical variations tend to have less impact on a group than on an individual.  Part of the reason we belong to groups is to reduce these statistical effects.  Additionally, an individual can change his or her mind more quickly than a group can change its negotiated agreement of intent.  This ability to change direction quickly makes forecasting individual behavior quite difficult.  

Bearing these few things in mind one can apply everything that has been discussed in the prior section to the individual.  I shall not repeat any of the prior material even where there are changes when dealing with the individual.  Rather my intent here is to extend the discussion into the specific issues of optimal achievement as a change agent.

Being dissatisfied with and/or complaining about the current situation does not make one a change agent.  Telling people how things ought to be can be a change agent action.  It may in some circumstances motivate someone else to work toward a change.  But then they become the primary and more active change agent.   

Furthermore, people who do nothing more than criticize; rarely understand what is really wrong.  To really understand one needs to become actively involved in trying to change or create something.  Only through doing will you appreciate why things are the way they are, how they got that way, what they might potentially become and how they might get that way.  Most importantly through such interaction your opinion of what ought-to-be will change for the better. 

The change agent challenge comes in three steps.  You will find each more difficult than the prior and all essentially impossible to complete. 

1. One must learn to see things as they truly are.  One must remove the deliberate and in advertent veil of deception that others would place over our eyes and the, far more difficult to remove, veil we place over our own eyes.  There is no end to this task, but that is not reason to despair, much can be done. 
2. One must see what could be.  Utopian visions come easy.  But they are often simply a different form of misery.  They tend to be myopic opinions that simply are undesirable to most people.  The difficult task is to show in an intellectually honest manner why something is better and why it is feasible.  Since there is no reason to believe we can either design or create the ultimate anything, this task is without end. 
3. The real change agent challenge comes once you have clearly seen what is wrong and what is better.  At that point, my challenge to you is, "Change it!"  If you think either 1) that is easy or 2) impossible, then you have much to learn. 

The change agent challenge role is perhaps the most difficult in the world.  Here we will discuss some tools that will improve your ability to make a change.  The will to understand the world as it really is, the will to expand these tools discussed here, and the will to change the world must all come from you.

Readings:

Weinberg, Gerald (19xx) Problem Solving Leadership

Exercises:

1.       The next time someone describes to you what is wrong with the world (or some small part of it); say something like, “Then change it!” or “You’re right.  Let’s change it.” Make sure you do this to encourage them to think about how.  Let them know you take their concern seriously enough that you really want to discuss how things can be changed.  Many people will say something like, “It’s too big a problem for me.” Or they may simply laugh.  Don’t let them get out of it.  You can say something like, “Well if you could change it, how would you do it?” Or, “If not you, then who?” Work with them to either recognize how it can be changed or that they are wrong about what needs to be changed. 

2.       On another occasion when you hear someone say what is wrong; ask, “How do you suppose it got that way.” This is a difficult task.  Many people will say, “That’s just the way those *%^#**# people are!” Where those people can be gays, straights, democrats, republicans, members of another religion, another culture, managers, staff, etc.  Do not do this exercise with the true bigot.  You will get nowhere.  But with some you can get them and yourself to think about what was better before and how the change took place.  Do this in the spirit that understanding will give you clues as to how things can be changed again.  Very often it will lead to the realization that things were not really any better in the past or that there have been changes for the better.  Neither of which means that something still better is not possible.  It may be the reason we want the change is because we have grown in our understanding and expectation of what can be.  Our wants may have evolved.

3.       After you have done the above two things often enough, look for patterns.  Identify how you could have managed the dialogue to better effect.  Ask yourself, “Did we really see something we could change for the better?” Did we change it? If not, why not?

ç  Prior Page of Text     Next Page of Text è
(C) 2005-2014 Wayne M. Angel.  All rights reserved.