Chin and Benne termed their resulting approaches: empirical- rational, normative- reeducative, and power-coercive. The critical difference among these approaches is the motivation the influencing agent attributes to the target of the influence attempt. Empirical Rational Approach The underlying philosophy of empirical- rational approaches is that people are essentially rational and will change their behavior when the change is justifiable to them on an intellectual level. In other words, if a person thinks that it is logical and important to change, he or she will do so if given the proper information. It is only ignorance and superstition that act to prevent behavior change from occurring (Chin and Benne, 1969). Normative Reeducative Approach This approach assumes that people are active organisms, who depend on new knowledge as well as a variety of noncognitive, sociocultural determinants to arrive at a decision of whether to change. When using these approaches, therefore, the influencing agent tries to change the target’s attitudes, values, and feelings at a personal level, and norms and significant relationships at the social level (Chin and Benne, 1969). In summary, the normative- reeducative view incorporates the empirical- rational view and it adds to it a distinctively social element, thereby recognizing the importance of “knowledge and people as power.” Power Coercive Approach Although empirical- rational and normative- reeducative approaches deal with the role of power in influencing others, both types reject the notion of power as coercive and nonreciprocal. In contrast, power-coercive approaches generally assume that the target will change when presented with sanctions that are political and economic in nature, or when made to feel guilty or shameful for not changing. The influencing agent may take these steps when it is apparent that the target believes it is not in his or her best interest to change. Although power-coercive approaches have been associated with tyrannical leaders of the past, it is

Chin and Benne Article

Download DOC Report

Upload
jeneil
View
114
Download
0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Empirical Rational ApproachThe underlying philosophy of empirical- rational approaches is that people are essentially rational and will change their behavior when the change is justifiable to them on an intellectual level. In other words, if a person thinks that it is logical and important to change, he or she will do so if given the proper information. It is only ignorance and superstition that act to prevent behavior change from occurring (Chin and Benne, 1969).

Normative Reeducative ApproachThis approach assumes that people are active organisms, who depend on new knowledge as well as a variety of noncognitive, sociocultural determinants to arrive at a decision of whether to change. When using these approaches, therefore, the influencing agent tries to change the target’s attitudes, values, and feelings at a personal level, and norms and significant relationships at the social level (Chin and Benne, 1969). In summary, the normative- reeducative view incorporates the empirical- rational view and it adds to it a distinctively social element, thereby recognizing the importance of “knowledge and people as power.”

Power Coercive ApproachAlthough empirical- rational and normative- reeducative approaches deal with the role of power in influencing others, both types reject the notion of power as coercive and nonreciprocal. In contrast, power-coercive approaches generally assume that the target will change when presented with sanctions that are political and economic in nature, or when made to feel guilty or shameful for not changing. The influencing agent may take these steps when it is apparent that the target believes it is not in his or her best interest to change. Although power-coercive approaches have been associated with tyrannical leaders of the past, it is also important to note that they have formed the basis of nonviolent strategies for change such as those advocated by Henry David Thoreau, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. (Chin and Benne, 1969).