Re: Searching for LOs LO2543

JOHN N. WARFIELD (jwarfiel@osf1.gmu.edu)
Thu, 24 Aug 1995 07:14:19 -0400 (EDT)

Replying to LO2512 --

On Tue, 22 Aug 1995 AlexiaM@aol.com wrote:

> >>The area that I see John pointing at, and one that I value and
> pursue, is that an approach based on education and development rather
> than intervention is the pathway to longterm success and to
> organisational impact. <<
>
> This is probably a naive question, but isn't education and development
> just one kind of intervention? What is the essence that distinguishes
> this approach.
>
> AlexiaM@aol.com

Alexia, you raise a great question. Here is my try at an answer.

The word "intervention" seems to signify certain roles:

o An ongoing collection of "actors" whose actions are not producing the
sought values

o Actor(s) outside that ongoing collection who enter it for the purpose of
interrupting whatever continuity exists there and replacing it with
modified activities going in new directions to achieve values otherwise
unattainable.

o A distinctive actor within the ongoing group that brought in the outside
actors

Given these definitions, anything that involves external entry is an
intervention.

The problem with the word "intervention" is not that it is not an accurate
description in terms of the physics of movement and human interaction.

The problem with the word "intervention" is what it implies about pecking
orders to those who are the guinea pigs in the situation. The very
language itself conveys a clear message of salvation.

The benefit of avoiding such terms is that in replacing them with softer
language we can achieve an alternative mode of role distinctions that
starts from equal footing; or at least does not seem to specify a
teacher-pupil arrangement.

In the system of Interactive Management we go at this role issue by
spelling out in advance who is responsible for what. The "intervenor" (to
coin a term) is totally responsible for the process. The participants are
totally responsible for the content. The prior planning is responsible
for the context, and that is a joint responsibility.

>From another perspective we could see a symmetric kind of intervention:
the outsider intervenes in the organizations practices, and the
organization intervenes in the outsider's worldview, especially if the
outsider is not in the self-sealing mode.

--
JOHN WARFIELD
Jwarfiel@gmu.edu