Reach a Social Accord: Cycle-1
The Spiral process operates, as usual, with 7 Stages over 2 Cycles that move needs from being served in accord with to being served in the .
Because an institution rests on , serving the public interest is rarely a simple matter.
Cycle-1 focuses on building awareness to generate a social accord: initially with , then via underlying , and finally by explaining the evolving situation via a .
Cycle-2 focuses on building the political will to confront vested interests: initially using , then via , and finally by a to develop an accurate picture of the situation.
Stage-1: Promote Vested Interests
Every institution has to start from the reality that each person and every organisation has their own concerns and will be active in their own interest. Lobbying for change is mostly self-interested rather than on behalf of the public, whatever may be said.
It is at this self-centric foundation that authoritarianism strikes.
Psychosocial Pressure: The primary concern here is for an interest, concern or complaint to be articulated, to be heard and to produce a result that is beneficial, and so the pressure is for performance. Cf. other pressures:
Termination in Stage-1: It is very possible that asserting an interest or concern will lead to a response from one or more relevant bodies in the institution. Naturally this is more likely for a powerful firm lobbying a regulator than for a person writing a blog. Whatever the situation, if there is a satisfactory result, there is no need to move further around the Spiral.
Transition to Stage-2
However, if there is an insufficient response, and enough people note that certain social values are being persistently violated—possibly service or safety or efficiency or notifications or cleanliness—then there is a sense that the institution is failing and a pressure for finding a remedy develops.
Almost anyone can and sometimes should respond to undesirable and seemingly unnecessary failings by . That moves the institution to .
Stage-2: Discuss Potential Remedies
Failings with institutions are often quickly identified and articulated, and people want them fixed. But getting at the root of the failing calls for discussion and even obvious solutions that present themselves will not proceed without public discussion. Pressure needs to build up in society to persuade those in positions of responsibility to alter their outlook.
Psychosocial Pressure: Discussions typically use anecdotal evidence, but those engaged commonly either feel certain or engage in discussion in order to get more certainty. Because of the many implications of remedies, people feel a need to become more certain. So all discussions seem to occur under a pressure for certainty as well as performance in the sense of putting the case properly. Cf. other pressures:
Termination in Stage-2: If the opinions and ideas seem like common-sense and appeal to emotions, they easily resonate with others. So it is possible that people and organisations choose to adjust. Alternatively, campaigning may lead to an official response introducing changes of the sort desired.
Transition to Stage-3
However, discussions may lead nowhere, or remedies may be pursued without leading to the desired improvement. Indeed matters may worsen as the failing becomes more pervasive and entrenched: recall the intervention paradox. This starts to generate a pressure for a deeper understanding of why an apparently unsatisfactory arrangement persists, why a seemingly beneficial and oobvious remedy fails, and what all might agree should be done. That can move the institution to .
Stage-3: Analyze Topical Issues
Politicians, officials, academic observers, journalists and others cannot fail to notice the institutional complaints and campaigns. An absence of remedial action or its failure confirms their sense that the issue is likely more complicated than it appears on the surface.
Anyone with a rational-empirical approach will expect there is more to the story. Careful study and analysis are required to identify the causative factors and clarify what is going on. On that basis, there can be reasonable suggestions as to what might be done.
Psychosocial Pressure: Pressures for performance and certainty will surely exist, but institutions are cultural artefacts. So any analysis must not challenge cultural positions and popular conventions if it is to be useful. This makes acceptability the characteristic psychosocial pressure, but certainty and performance pressures will also apply. Cf. other pressures:
Termination in Stage-3: Sometimes a careful analysis can point to a necessary set of changes which people and institutional leaders can appreciate and implement. Improvement is most likely if the report is not too controversial, recommendations fit with current values and powerful interests are not threatened.
Transition to Stage-4
However, reports often upset powerful interests and recommendations may be either too complex to be assimilated or too politically controversial to be acted upon.
To deal with this, a society needs some sort of coherent overview that people can share, one which validates or adapts to vested interests and which clarifies a direction or approach for institutional participants. That calls for work in .
Stage-4: Construct Credible Narratives
Society's leaders and opinion-formers are expected to speak up about the condition of an institution and the significance of particular issues and events. This requires an account that uses interpretations, values and beliefs to frame the situation. As the term suggestions a narrative is a form of story, often structured with a beginning (the past), a middle (the present) and an end (the future). The temporal sequence may only be implied but there is an implicit direction or at least an orientation to the current condition.
Psychosocial Pressure: The credibility of a narrative derives partly from pressures for performance (because it implies actions), certainty (because it seeks to be authoritative), acceptability (because it seeks widespread adoption). The additional primary pressure, however, is well-being because the narrative is devised to reassure and insofar as there is an integration of past and present, it aims to portray a better future for all.
Cf. other pressures:.
.
Termination in Stage-4: The establishment of a may sufficiently reassure those affected by institutional issues while satisfying vested interests, including government. However, a narrative usually creates a differentiation amongst stakeholders with particular interests being supported, and other interests being minimized or neglected. The institution may stabilize at this point if there is a social accord around the narrative.
Transition to Stage-5
However, continuing agitation and complaints raise more questions of the true condition of the institution. Popular complaints and media stories may argue that vested interests that are responsible for the ongoing dysfunction are those being directly or indirectly supported by the current narrative.
Politicians only respond to public sentiment when it reaches a certain extreme. Otherwise they are more responsive to those who fund their campaigns. So everyone understands that improvement in many institutions is likely to be blocked by vested interests while politicians sit by passively.
Nothing ever happens unless the issues and relevant vested interests are directly confronted in the public arena. The next cycle attempts to expose realities so as to build the political to get change.
Confrontation of vested interests, private or governmental, requires communal backing and a degree of certainty. This occurs in Cycle-2, and the first step in such a confrontation is revealing quantitative evidence that appears to bear on the issue.
- Enter Cycle-2 starting with
Originally posted: 14-Nov-2022. Last updated: 30-Apr-2023