In "Transforming the Systems Movement", Russell Arkoff explained the difference between "ReFORMation" and "TransFORMation". He posited that "Reformations and Transformations are not the same thing. Reformations are concerned with changing the means systems employ to pursue their objectives. Transformations involve changes in the objectives they pursue". Adapting Peter Drucker's definition of efficiency versus effectiveness, he submitted that intent of reformation is "doing things right" while intent of transformation is "doing the right thing". I concur with him hence won't say more on this.
Over the past three series, we have covered "form", "formation", "deformity or deformation" and "information" in relation to transformation journey. Given that we have made the clear distinction between reformation and transformation, our attention in the rest of this series will now be on "conFORMity or conFORMance". According to Psychologyhub, there are three (3) types of conformity - 1. Compliance (i.e. change in behaviour only), 2. Internalisation (i.e. true conformity - change in behaviour and beliefs) and 3. Identification (i.e. change in behaviour and beliefs to please the group). Of these three, transformation requires internalisation to thrive. Internalisation helps to eliminate the negative effect of conformity (or conformance) and project its positive impact helping the team to function smoothly, harmoniously and predictably.
You've always heard leadership enthusiasts say that "Leadership is influence". In social influence, we talk about two (2) types - informational influence and normative influence. Informational influence occur when we conform to others because we believe that they have accurate or superior information. This is why the price of leadership is costlier than money and the prize of transformational failure is new opportunity. Normative influence on the other hand occur when we conform to others because we want them to like us or accept us. Therefore, the leaders' utmost cry is to transform his/her associates through guided, guarded and instructive informational influence. Winning - in this game - is about "hearts and minds".
The Plant Integrity (PI) Assurance Department comprised of seven (7) engineering disciplines. Let's see whether you can recognize each of them in this rhyme - "There is a reason we love to be static but we can't do without rotating. This calls for inspection of materials and equipment whilst powering several others electrically. It calls - as well - for reliability of people plus assets and automation of the process to underscore our civil minds and structures". Now, the greek letter π (Pi) defines the integrity of circles irrespective of size as dimensioned by their radius or diameter. In branding, we decided to identify with π (Pi) intuitively, reflectively and instructively. We believe that our calling as a team is to deliver value reliably, consistently and constantly to our internal and external stakeholders within our circles of influence. To the integrity of our purpose within the organisation we avow to conform.
https://psychologyhub.co.uk/conformity-types-majority-influence-compliance-internalisation-identification-asch-lines-study-conformity-research/
Quite interesting to note the progression from compliance through internalization and finally identification: all reflecting different shades of conformity. I equally agree with the clarity associated with reformation and transformation in relation to human systems. The difference between the "how" and the "what" of system movements with respect to transformation is made clearer. Thanks for this clarity of concept
ReplyDeleteHi Vitalis, thanks once again for the feedback. Have a great day!
Delete