Re: Resistance to change LO1498

Michael McMaster (Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk)
Fri, 2 Jun 1995 08:44:53 +0000

Replying to LO1332 --

I sent the following message to Tobin and he asked that I send it to
the whole list. So here it is. Following in a separate posting is
Tobin's response that he gave me permission to forward in response
to this one.
- ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From: Self </Michael>
To: Tobin Quereau <quereau@austin.cc.tx.us>
Subject: Re: Resistance to change LO1332
Date: Fri, 26 May 1995 07:04:19

Tobin extends the thread of "learning as integration" in some
beautiful ways that resonate with my deeper thinking. He asks if we
might refer to "existing knowledge" as "mental models". I prefer not
to and to reserve the term "mental models" for a more specific
application.

"Mental models" has become popular and seems to have replaced
"paradigms" in the popular organisational learning and change
conversations. They both share the same failing. That is, they
cover a much wider range of phenomena than their original intentions
- and thus become rather sloppy terms for any thinking.

Knowledge can be usefully thought of as "mental models" when specific
parts of it are being considered. That is, I have a "mental model"
of how a production system works, of the personality of my wife or of
how people in teams function. These mental models are general
references to a compression that will get me into trouble if things
change, that limit the possibility of those things they refer to (for
me) and that generally allow me to be unconscious of the richer
interplay that is present. But they are useful when I want to talk
about my relationship to the particular thing.

However, if we call knowledge in total "my mental models" as though
it was constructed from a set of such models, we will have missed the
point of knowledge. Knowledge is far more integrated and for richer
than a bunch of mental models - even if they are considered to be
interlocking and overlapping. Rather, "mental models" are abstracted
from the rich integrated experience that I am so that I can talk
about some part of that experience. The whole is too rich, detailed
and full of possibility to access much of by "talking about".

The assumptions of "mental models" leads to many of the problems of
change and resistance that we encounter. That is, _a_ mental model
is singular and implies that it can be changed independently of the
whole. ("If only they had a better, different, etc mental model.")
The term tends to generate a simplistic view and generate
conversations that are too shallow to impact the whole.

The point is to realise that "mental model" is a lingusitic construct
that may be useful when used with an operational definition but is
far from what is actually occurring.

--
Michael McMaster
Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk