Advertisement

THE MODEL OF COOPERATIVE CONTEXTUAL CHANGE

A Process for Implementing Problem-based Learning
  • Alessandro Biscaccianti1
  • Thomas C. Neil
Part of the Educational Innovation in Economics and Business book series (EIEB, volume 10)

Abstract

The contemporary and forecasted economic context is seen as experiencing dynamic change, which requires learning as a continuous endeavor. When confronted with a new context, which requires changing one’s perceptions and behaviors and engaging in ‘new’ learning, people may believe they don’t ‘control’ the change (Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974). Widespread and/or intense contextual change can destroy cultural, social, and/or psychological anchors. Under these conditions, individuals are more likely to continue habituated behaviors and retain biased perceptions because of the need to maintain intellectual and emotional stability. Maintaining a sense of stability is understandable. Stabilizing anchors are necessary if individuals, groups, and communities are to focus their energy on discovering and implementing positive responses to dynamic change (Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974). For the change initiator/facilitator/teacher the issue is how to present and maintain ‘anchors’ that facilitate rather than hinder ‘new’; approaches to, processes of, and objectives for learning. In this chapter, Change Initiator, Facilitator, and Teacher as well as Learner and Student are used interchangeably.

Keywords

Dynamic Stability Intellectual Capital Transformational Learning Change Initiative Context Assessment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, D., & Ackerman Anderson, L. (2001). Beyond Change Management. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  2. Arendt, C. H., Landis, R. M., & Meister, T. B. (1995). The human side of change part 4, IEE Solutions, May, 22–26.Google Scholar
  3. Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. Barjou, B. (1999). Manager par Projet: Methodes et Comportements pour Animer Hors Statut Hierarchique (2nd ed.). Paris: ESF Editeur.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66 (1), 32–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biscaccianti, A. (2004). Foundations and Implementation of the Model of Cooperative Contextual Change and its Impact on Executives and Team’s Performance. DBA Dissertation, International School of Management, Paris.Google Scholar
  7. Biscaccianti, A., Neil, T. C., & Renard, P. (2004). The model of cooperative contextual change: Establishing the conditions for continuum improvement. Presented at Educational Innovation in Economics and Business XI, Maastricht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  8. Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1985). The Managerial Grid III: The Key to Leadership Excellence. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. Fast Company, October (51), 90–100.Google Scholar
  10. Choo, C. W., & Bontis, N. (2002). Knowledge, intellectual capital, and strategy: Themes and tensions. In C. W. Choo & N. Bontis (Ed.), The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge (pp. 3–22). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. De Bono, E. (1985). Six Thinking Hats. Toronto, Ontario: Key Porter Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  12. De Saint Paul, J., & Tenenbaum, S. (2002). L’Esprit de la Magie. La Programmation Neuro-Linguistique. Relation à soi, relation à l’autre, relation au monde. Paris: InterEditions-Dunod.Google Scholar
  13. Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences, 6 (2), 204–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Desikachar, K. (1999). Stability in Change: Notes of the seminar. Reims, France: Association Viniyoga.Google Scholar
  15. Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1981). Getting to Yes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  16. Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to Yes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  17. Grant, R. M. (2001). Knowledge and organization. In I. Nonaka & D. J. Teece (Eds.), Managing Industrial Knowledge (pp. 145–169). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Haley, J. (1973). Uncommon Therapy. New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
  19. Haley, J. (1976). Problem-Solving Therapy, New Strategies for Effective Family Therapy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Hersey, P. (1984). The Situational Leader. Escondido, CA: Center for Leadership Studies.Google Scholar
  21. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training and Development Journal, May, 26–34.Google Scholar
  22. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1972a). The Management of Change, Part1. Training and Development Journal, January, 6–10.Google Scholar
  23. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1972b). The Management of Change, Part2. Training and Development Journal, February, 20–24.Google Scholar
  24. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H. (1972c). The Management of Change, Part3. Training and Development Journal, March, 28–33.Google Scholar
  25. Herzberg, F. (1968). Work and the Nature of Man. London: Staples Press (reprinting of World Publishing Co., New York, NY, 1966).Google Scholar
  26. Herzberg, F. (1959). Motivation to Work. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  27. Huston, L. A. (1992). Using total quality to put strategic intent to motion. Planning Review, 20 (5), 21–23.Google Scholar
  28. Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment mechanisms in utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 33 (4), 499–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73 (2), 59–67.Google Scholar
  30. Levine, G. (1997). Forging successful resistance. Bobbin, 39 (1), 164–166.Google Scholar
  31. New, J. R., & Singer, D. D. (1983). Understanding why people reject new ideas helps to convert resistance into acceptance. Industrial Engineering, 15 (5), 50–57.Google Scholar
  32. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59 (5), 603–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosenberg, M. (1999). Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Compassion. Del Mar, CA: PuddlerDancer Press.Google Scholar
  34. Salancik, G. R. (1977). Commitment is too easy. Organizational Dynamics, Summer, 62–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schein, E. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  36. Schutz, W. C. (1958). FIRO: A Three Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. New York, NY: Holt Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  37. Schutz, W. C. (1982). Profound Simplicity. San Diego, CA: Learning Concepts.Google Scholar
  38. Schutz, W. C. (1984). The Truth Option: A Practical Technology for Human Affairs. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.Google Scholar
  39. Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. R., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  40. Tissier, D. & Verne, E. (1989). Management Situationnel 1. Les Voies de l’Autonomie et de la Délégation. Paris: INSEP.Google Scholar
  41. Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W. H., & Segers, M. S. R. (2004). Effects of social factors on shared cognition and teamwork in collaborative learning environments, presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April: 12–26.Google Scholar
  42. Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (1), 145–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weinbach, R. W. (1984). Implementing change: Insights and strategies of the supervisor. Social Work, 29 (3), 282–286.Google Scholar
  44. Wenger, E. C. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7 (3), 418–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Watzlawick, P. (1983). The Situation is Hopeless but not Serious (The Pursuit of Unhappiness). New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
  47. Watzlawick, P., Helmick Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of Human Communication. A Study on Interactional Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  48. Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Biscaccianti1
    • 1
  • Thomas C. Neil
    • 2
  1. 1.Baobab ArchitectureDijonFrance
  2. 2.Allen UniversityColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations