Third-Order Change As a Systems Theory

for Community Psychology

American Psychological AssociationChristopher Beasley, PhD, MA

2016

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESEARCH TEAM

• Objects & Environments– Relationship between elements

• 3rd order change as systems theory– Interaction between communities & paradigms

in which problems are embedded

Systems Theory

Von Bertalanffy, 1968

• Reducing stagnation• Anticipation & reaction to changes– Changing environment– Uncertainty

• Stereotypes & biases • Power disparities

Why 3rd Order Change

Bartunek & Moch, 1994

• Nature of schemas in organizational change– Assumptions of cause & effect

• 1st Order– Schematically Concordant

• 2nd Order– Schematically Disconcordant

• 3rd Order– Aschematic

– Paradigms

Orders of Change

Watzlawick et al., 1974

• Change that relies on established paradigms– Usually centered on deficits and problems– Often a reaction to immediate problems– Leave social structures & cultures in place

• Incremental adjustments to individuals & settings

1st Order Change

Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974

• Crime– People do not have control

• People must be controlled– Greater enforcement/enforcers needed

1st Order Change Example

• Advantages– Simple & familiar

• Address known problems in expected ways• Limited in scope, thereby fostering efficiency

• Disadvantages– Short-term solutions to symptoms – May create problems in other parts of the

system

Pros & Cons of 1st Order Change

Robinson, Brown, Beasley, & Jason, 2015

• Change that alters the social context/paradigms

• Valued in community psychology• Longer-term distal problem focus– Often prevention-focused

2nd Order Change

Watzlawick et al., 1974

• Crime– People predisposed to good– Maldevelopment leads to antisocial behavior– Intervention can insure healthy development

• Thus reducing crime

2nd Order Change Example

• Advantages– Alters systems & structural causes of problems.

• Change objectives, roles, and the general nature of power

• Can address problematic ideas, structures, & systems– Opportunity for more comprehensive & longer-term

solutions • Potential for creative & innovative solutions to

entrenched system-level problems• Can reduce stigma toward individuals not functioning

well in the system

Pros & Cons of 2nd Order Change

Seidman, 1988; Watzlawick et al., 1974

• Disadvantages– May not offer immediate relief – Often conflicts w/ accepted paradigms

• Stakeholder objections & confusion• Limited support

– Empirical validation– Operationalization, goals, & measurement– Funding

• Typically lack manualized guides– Complicates implementation, replication, and adaptation

– Ethical dilemmas• Can weaken settings and their autonomy if not participatory • New problems may surface with new systems

Pros & Cons of 2nd Order Change

Watzlawick et al., 1974

• Awareness & ability to change schemata• Essential shift in the social fabric– Alter fundamental culture in which people,

systems, & structures are embedded– Challenges paradigms & practices, developing

culture• Continually questioning• Constantly identifying problems & social precipitants• Implementing solutions• Ongoing process and outcome evaluations• Ongoing critique of problems & ecological causes

3rd Order Change

Bartunek & Moch, 1987

• Crime– Human tendencies may not be consistently

good or bad• Some people may have greater self-control while

others may not– Causes of crime are multi-faceted and may

vary based on context• Situation will need to be assessed to develop

appropriate means of addressing problem

3rd Order Change Example

• Advantages– 2nd order change advantages– Setting flexibility

• Can become more flexible, adaptable, & innovative – Autonomy

• Potentially greater autonomy through internal awareness, problem-solving, and reflexive action

– Sustainability• Autonomy, flexibility, and sustained questions • Can identify and address future problems

Pros & Cons of 3rd Order Change

Robinson, Brown, Beasley, & Jason, 2015

• Disadvantages– 2nd order change disadvantages– Cognitive dissonance

• Discomfort expected as paradigms continually questioned

– Uncertainty• May make outcomes less certain• Stakeholders may feel uncomfortable• May be less attractive to external funding

Pros & Cons of 3rd Order Change

Bartunek & Moch, 1994; Robinson, Brown, Beasley, & Jason, 2015

• Series of 2nd order changes– Use differences in perspectives as a starting

point– Build informal structures to enable operation

from diverse perspectives– Expose members to experiences in various

cultural settings• Diffusion of key stakeholder experiences to

others

3rd Order Organization Change

Bartunek & Moch, 1994; Bartunek et al., 1983; Cox, 1991; Mirvis, 1990

• Community psychology & other fields have not framed community intervention as 3rd order change – Critical consciousness

• Can promote questioning of existing structures and schemas – Capacity building for self-sustained action & change

• May broaden perspectives on community problems & solutions

• May broaden resources available to address problems– Reflexivity

• Opportunity for continual examination of factors – Processes of change– Emerging ecological shifts

3rd Order Community Change

Robinson, Brown, Beasley, & Jason, 2015

• Critical Consciousness– Awareness of problem-related systems,

structures, & beliefs– Watts’ stages of sociopolitical development

• Unaware of system inconsistencies & dysfunction• See inconsistencies but feel powerless to change

structures• Question value of adapting to dysfunctional system

– Learning more about the system– Learning more about what maintains dysfunctions

• Act on critical awareness to change the system– Building capacity for collective action

3rd Order Community Change

Watts, Griffith, & Abdul-Adil, 1999; Watts, Williams, & Jagers, 2003

• Critical Consciousness– Communities may collectively

• Gain awareness• Process feelings of powerlessness• Question importance of adapting• Learn about systems constraining them • Act to change systems

3rd Order Community Change

Watts, Griffith, & Abdul-Adil, 1999; Watts, Williams, & Jagers, 2003

• Grounded Theory– Post-modern– Interactionist– Localized/contexualized – Democratized knowledge

• Situational Analysis– Analysis of elements in the situation– Relationship b/t elements in the situation– Analysis of elements of the social world in which situation

is taking place– Commitments, views, & actions of elements in social world– Positions on discursive issues

3rd Order Community Change

Clarke, 2005

• Capacity Building– Communities that Care (CTC)

• Developing prevention interventions • Providing resources• Promoting local stakeholder support & ownership

– Five-phase process• Assessing community readiness• Forming local coalition• Conducting needs assessment• Selecting evidence-based interventions• Implementing & evaluating intervention

3rd Order Community Change

Hawkins & Catalano, 1992

• Reflexivity– Encourage ongoing dialogue

• Actions, progress, & outcomes• Potential need to change structures again

– If intended outcomes are not achieved – If ecology changes such that structure is no longer

appropriate– Grounded theory w/ situational analysis

3rd Order Community Change

Robinson, Brown, Beasley, & Jason, 2015

• 3rd Order Goal– Innovative & adaptive systems & structures

that are sustainable through self-renewal• 3rd Order Objectives– Fundamental paradigm shift toward social

awareness, evaluation, & action– Culture of continual questioning

Summary

Robinson, Brown, Beasley, & Jason, 2015

• 3rd Order Processes– Critical consciousness– Capacity building– Reflexivity

• 3rd Order Methods– Sociopolitical development– Grounded theory w/ situational analysis– Capacity building

Summary

Robinson, Brown, Beasley, & Jason, 2015

• Development– Theory

• 3rd order community change• 3rd order community design

– Logic Model– Evaluation Methods– Instruments– Intervention

• Evaluation– When Best

Moving Forward

Bartunek, J. M., Gordon, J. R., & Weathersby, R. P. (1983). Developing “complicated” understanding in administrators. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 273-284.

Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. (1987). First-order, second-order, and third-order change and organization development interventions: A cognitive approach. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23(4), 483-500.

Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. (1994). Third-order organizational change and the western mystical tradition. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 7(1), 24-41.

Clarke, A. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Sage.Cox Jr, T. (1991). The multicultural organization. The executive, 34-47.Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (1992). Communities that care. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Mirvis, P. H. (1990). Organizational development: Part II – A revolutionary perspective. In W. A. Pasmore & R.

W. Woodman (Eds), Research in Organizational Change & Development, Vol. 4, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Robinson, W. L., Brown, M., Beasley, C. R., & Jason, L.A. (2014). Advancing Prevention Intervention from Theory to Application: Challenges and Contributions of Community Psychology. In M.A. Bond, C. Keys, & I. Serrano-García (Eds.). Handbook of Community Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Seidman, E. (1988). Back to the future, community psychology: Unfolding a theory of social intervention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 3-24. doi:10.1007/BF00906069

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory. In D. Hammond (Ed), The science of synthesis: Exploring the social implications of general systems theory. New York, 41973, 40.

Watts, R. J., Griffith, D. M., & Abdul-Adil, J. (1999). Sociopolitical Development as an Antidote for Oppression-Theory and Action, American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 255–271. doi:10.1023/A:1022839818873

Watts, R. J., Williams, N. C., & Jagers, R. J. (2003). Sociopolitical development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 185–94. doi:10.1023/A:1023091024140

Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem formation and problem resolution. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

References