over the years i've started to notice
something interesting
it turns out that several
well-established theories in the social
sciences
from psychology sociology and
anthropology to
organizational studies political science
and policy making
well they share similar ways of thinking
about
basic human needs and social forces
in essence these approaches identify
core aspects
of what motivates us and these
motivations are then reflected
in the ways we go about organizational
and social change and
even in our political attitudes
but perhaps more than anything these
core motivations
underlie the way we act together
and the way we think about acting
together so for that reason
i call them forms of coordination
the first of these forms is based on
authority
it's essentially about doing what we're
told to do
and it's connected to ideas such as
leadership hierarchy
strategy expertise
the second is based on values and
belonging
doing what we think we ought to do
given the kind of person we think we are
and it's linked to ideas like solidarity
social responsibility the collective
the tribe and then finally
there's the form based on who we are as
unique individuals
doing what we want to do for ourselves
connected to ideas like autonomy freedom
entrepreneurship ambition
creativity now
many theories for example
self-determination theory from
psychology or
the competing values framework from
organizational studies
or the idea of public value in
policymaking
well they broadly recognize the need to
balance
and channel these different motivations
and the views and methods of change that
flow from them
but there are two things which tend to
often to be left
out first that achieving and sustaining
balance between those motivations and
the
forms of change that come with them it's
inherently difficult
this is partly because each of the forms
of coordination
has aspects which are compatible with
the other forms
but also less benign expressions which
are not
so individualism for example can be
about autonomy self-expression
creativity but it could also be about
selfishness
atomism mindless competition
and difficulty also arises because the
forms often
compete as accounts of why we have
social problems and how we have to solve
those problems
indeed each form gains some of its
legitimacy from its critique of the
others
so for example the advocates of
value-based collectivist solutions
will often bolster their case by
questioning hierarchical control
or the irresponsibility of individualism
and finally even when societies or
organizations
do achieve some kind of balance of ways
of acting and thinking
well the problem is we live in a
changing world and
change is likely to upset that balance
there's also something else that often
gets missed out
and that's the importance of a fourth
rather different perspective
fatalism fatalism is an inherent part of
the human condition
probably linked to our awareness of our
own mortality
but it's also often simply the most
accurate assessment of how likely
positive change is to occur in
any given social context
now given how often versions of this
framework
combining ideas of authority of values
and belonging
of individual aspiration given how often
this framework
emerges from conceptual and empirical
enquiry
across a range of disciplines well
there's a big question
why is it not more widely accepted
understood
and applied i think
one answer is that social science
disciplines tend to offer
very different accounts of human nature
and of society
reflecting their traditions and
ideological predispositions
sociologists are generally more
left-wing than economists
psychologists focus on individual
motivation
anthropologists think the group is what
matters
and these different academic world views
may also be a reason why the natural
sciences
which agree about much more have been
able to advance and win so much more
public trust than the social sciences
now what i call coordination theory and
the theories
are similar to it well they don't offer
a slam dunk way of reaching an agreed
diagnosis about social or organizational
problems
they don't provide a single prescription
about how to achieve
progress but what they do offer i think
is a
well it's a kind of shared base camp for
social scientists to develop
richer accounts of the social worlds we
all live in
bringing together the insights offered
by different disciplines
in a way that makes them more accessible
and more useful
to a much wider public
let's face it we can't afford not to
bring the best
understanding of who we are as humans
to the increasingly complex challenges
facing pretty much every community
organization
and nation in the world today
if social science with its inherent
commitment
to human welfare is not to be entirely
sidelined by the juggernauts of science
and technology
well its proponents need to start
emphasizing what they do
agree about more often than what
they don't after all if we could agree
a bit more about what makes people
and what makes societies tick
we might be more able to build a bridge
to the future
you