There are numerous models of how change occurs. Since many of us visiting this site are in the "business" of making changes happen, this entry is a scholarly approach to understanding how change occurs. The paper below, from Richard Garrison, is a workable conception of the nature of change. As you read it, you may begin to identify which of the five groups (or cohorts) most closely describes you, or others with (or against) whom you work.

The Garrison paper is one proven way to look at reality. Like any model, it is a map and NOT the territory. It is also the description of a cyclic process. In such a process, it is all happening at once, but one or two cohorts will generally be dominant. Along with Lord Thomas Macauley's study and observations of the stages through which all democracies seem to pass, this paper can begin to provide a decent basic conceptualization of where we are in time and process.

A final essential to understanding 'change' is found in Fritjof Capra's writings on how change occurs in nature. Since we humans are a part of nature, and imbedded in natural processes, our changes will follow that model. It is well described in his "Turning Point". He also has indicated, in "The Web Of Life", and "The Hidden Connections", how small efforts by a few dedicated people can actually have great effects on outcomes.

Garrison has since refined his concepts and added a number of additional cohorts. However, he (at least in our last conversation) stands by the basic accuracy and simplicity of the model described below.

Richard L. Garrison, M.D., Assistant Professor
University of Texas-Houston, Health Science Center
Department of Family Practice and Community Medicine
6431 Fannin, M.S.B. Suite 2.112, Houston, TX 77030
(713) 500-7591
(713) 500-7619 FAX
rgarrison@fpcm.med.uth.tmc.edu

Title: Estimation of Institutional Stability
A Five Cohort Interactive Model For
Predicting Risk of Institutional Failure and Collapse

Category: Bridging Between Categories
Particular Relevance: Politics, Government, Economics
Religion and Spiritual Communities
Health Care Systems
Education
Technological Trends

Summary
Societies may be conceptualized as an interactive network of component institutions that exhibit some degree of apparent independence from each other. Just as societies are born, develop, become senescent, and die, so too must the component institutions pass through a developmental life cycle. Each institution follows its own developmental time-course such that, compared to closely related institutions, it may appear to be at a similar stage of development, or less often, at a very different stage of development.

Institutions may die while the composite society lives on, with the birth of a new institution to carry on the vital functions of the deceased. However, the death of an institution may exert a deadly force on other institutions that are already senescent, hastening their collapse. This is particularly true of closely related institutions. The simultaneous collapse of several vital institutions may threaten the viability of a senescent society, whereas a robust society will more likely survive.

The stability of any component institution, or of the society at large, may be estimated by observing the relative activities of five different cohorts of participants that may always be found in a society.

By a dynamic consideration of the interactions of these five cohorts, the likelihood of institutional failure and collapse may be estimated. Perhaps by a thorough enough understanding of these principles, a method of avoiding cyclic senescence could be synthesized.

Overview of the cohorts
The first cohort consists of dreamers, inspirers, fomenters, and imagineers. In early, robust institutional stages, they are occasionally listened to, but usually ignored. Somewhat later, they are almost always ignored. Later, they are suppressed, and in the last stages of institutional senescence, they are forcibly silenced by any means necessary, legal or otherwise. When an institution has grown too weak to defend itself, the first cohort will precipitate revolutionary overthrow, and the cycle repeats.

The second cohort consists of synthesizers. They are disciples of the first cohort, lacking somewhat comparatively in imagination but being distinguished by superior grasp of the feasibility of executing their agenda. Early on in institutional life, they may speak out, but tend to silence themselves during the early and mid-life of an institution. When they perceive the approach of institutional senescence, usually in response to the urgings of the first cohort, they will emerge in force with an agenda for change. Because they are more numerous than those of the first cohort, the institution or society will find it considerably more difficult to silence them. Because they are more attentive to strategy and tactics than the first cohort, they may present a less obvious target as well. Finally, because they understand the third cohort, they are attentive to the appropriate propaganda for convincing that cohort that collapse of an institution is imminent.

This third cohort, by far the most numerous in any institution, consists of opportunists who care less for ideas than for comfort. They will support within very broad limits whatever institutional forms prevail. During all early and middle stages of an institution’s life, they support the institution. If the institution appears, however, to be failing under the attack of the first two cohorts, the third cohort will switch loyalties. Even if the institution was not actually collapsing under the attack of the first two cohorts, but only appeared to be, the switching of allegiance of the third cohort will cause the institution to fall rapidly.

The fourth cohort are the post-revolutionary groupies whose talent is for tinkering with the institution in incremental fashion. Obviously more numerous soon after a revolution, they persist at other times in the form of historians. As an institution grows older, fourth cohort members become less appreciative of the heritage of the institution and tend to re-invent institutional history in unflattering terms.

The fifth cohort specializes in consolidation of power and resources. This group is responsible for the suppression of activity of the first two cohorts, and always rises to dominate senescent societies and institutions. They are the targeted enemies of revolutionary activity because of their suppression of it, and because of the unsavoriness of their tactics used in consolidating power.

An Illusory Sequence
In certain classic cases of institutional collapse, these five cohorts appear to arise in sequential fashion. In the American Revolution of 1775, for example, the fifth cohort of the British government that was birthed in the events connected with the Restoration made a series of decisions that provoked a first cohort response from such persons as Patrick Henry, John Adams, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and Richard Henry Lee. Not long after, a small but significant second cohort represented by, for example, George Washington, Paul Revere, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe, began to give organizational substance to the ideas of the first cohort. Most of the minutemen at Lexington and Concord were likely to have been of this second cohort. After two years of intense and sacrificial struggle, during which most of their fellow colonials considered themselves loyalists to the Crown and condemned the rebellion, the first two cohorts won a significant victory in 1777 over General Burgoyne at Saratoga. The actual importance of this victory in the battlefield was slight; however, it was propagandized successfully to represent to the third cohort colonials, to the British people and government, and to the Crowns of Europe, that the American Revolutionaries had turned the tide and that victory was secure. The entry of masses of previous colonial Tories into the conflict on the side of the revolution after Saratoga brought the actual turning of the tide. The fourth cohort began its tinkering with the Constitution and the law in the late 1820’s, and the fifth cohort gained control in the 1930’s, being now well consolidated since the 1960’s.

It must be stressed that this sequential appearance is illusory. In fact, first cohort fomentation had been present throughout colonialization. There were several aborted uprisings of some strength in the 1760’s and 1770’s prior to the Revolution of 1775. Furthermore, the Whiskey Rebellion through the present militia movements illustrate that first cohort activity is always with us and always visible. Second cohort persons are also always present, but in contrast to the always-visible first cohort, keep a low profile until timing seems to be right. As I have mentioned, the third cohort is always the majority of any society, and has a trans-institutional existence, since it is little affected by changes in institutions or even by institutional death and replacement. And it need not be said that tinkerers and the power-hungry are always with us. Their apparent rises after institutional collapse and rebirth merely reflect when an institution is more vulnerable to tinkering and power consolidation respectively. So the dynamic of these five cohorts is interactional and exhibits the characteristics of non-linear, deterministic chaotic systems rather than a linear sequential format.

A True Sequence
It is in the life-cycle of the institution rather than in these component cohorts that we see sequence. That sequence is:

self formation,
self description and agenda formation,
concentration of power and resources to execute the agenda, with neglect of other agendas not incorporated into the original synthesis,
co-option of power and resources by the greedy,
progressively more aggressive suppression of advocates of neglected agenda,
moral decay, and
collapse.

A new cycle then begins. Usually, collapse is hastened by the first and second cohorts of the next institutional life cycle. Occasionally, as with the collapse of the Roman Empire, a vacuum is created, from which no effective new institutional life arises for many years, resulting in a “Dark Age.”

Discriminatory Axes
Three behavioral axes are sufficient to characterize these five cohorts. All three axes describe the cohort’s position with regard to some aspect of change.

The three axes are:

“internal” vs “external” origins of contemplated changes,
“active” vs “passive” role in bringing about changes, and
“other” vs “self” as the beneficiary of changes.

Three theoretical cohorts that I have not studied in the actual life of institutions, and will not discuss further, would be:

cohort six internal, active, self
cohort seven internal, passive, other
cohort eight internal, passive, self

The five cohorts that I have described above and will discuss further are:

first cohort internal, active, other
second cohort external, active, other
third cohort external, active, self
fourth cohort external, passive, other
fifth cohort external, passive, self

Patterns of Cooperation and Conflict
The first cohort shares two axes only with the second cohort, shares one each with the third and fourth, and clashes in all three axes with the fifth cohort. True to form, in institutional conflicts, first cohort persons target fifth cohort persons for their severest criticisms. If the fifth cohort is weak or poorly represented, first cohort persons will often mislabel third or fourth cohort persons as fifth cohort. First cohort persons are not much cooperative with anyone, but to some extent tolerate second cohort persons, while criticizing them as non-original, organizationally overly constrained, and risk-averse.

The second cohort shares two axes with the first, third, and fourth cohorts, and only one axis with the fifth. Such persons are most sympathetic to the first cohort, albeit viewing such individuals as a bit scattered, disorganized, excessively risk-taking. The second cohort has a good understanding of the third and fourth cohorts, viewing them respectively as resources to be manipulated and children to be taught. The second cohort understands the fifth cohort poorly, though better than does the first cohort, and maintains a healthier respect for them and keeps safer distance from them than does the first.

The third cohort shares two axes with the second and fifth cohorts and only one axis with the first and fourth cohorts. Members of the third cohort are not particularly relational, and tend to identify merely in us-them terms.

The fourth cohort shares two axes with the second and fifth cohorts, and only one axis with the first and third cohorts. Members of this cohort relate best to members of the second cohort. Their relationships with the fifth cohort are largely limited to being exploited by them. They mostly ignore the first and third cohorts. It is for this reason that historians usually neglect the significance of the majority of people in their accounts, concentrating instead on the actions of a few well-known persons.

The fifth cohort shares two axes with the third and fourth cohorts, one with the second cohort, and none at all with the first cohort. Relationships are exploitative of the third and fourth cohorts, while members of the second cohort tend to identify members of the fifth and steer clear of them so that not much relating occurs. The fifth cohort is openly at war with the first cohort and will destroy members of that cohort if necessary.

Interactional Analysis
Institutional stability may be estimated by looking at the interactions that seem to be present among these five cohorts. These will be typified in each of the life cycle stages mentioned above. As the interactions that seem to be present fall further down the progression toward collapse, the institution may be estimated to be more unstable.

Self Formation

This is the first stage after birth of an institution. The first cohort vigorously lobbies for incorporation of the ideals they espoused that fomented the collapse of the previous institution. They seek the total eradication of the defeated fifth cohort. The second cohort does most or all of the useful organizational work, and in particular seeks to guard against re-emergence of a new fifth cohort. The third cohort goes back to business as usual. The fourth cohort is small and weak. The fifth cohort is smaller and weaker still, needing some future tinkering by the fourth cohort to make opportunities for the fifth to seize and consolidate power.

Self Description and Agenda Formation

This agenda is likely to consist primarily of that which was neglected by the previous institution. Previously pre-eminent agendas are likely to be purposely, even vengefully, suppressed. The first cohort makes the strongest argument for such retaliation. The second is likely to agree while seeking to some extent to avoid “throwing the baby out with the bath water.” The third doesn’t care what the new agenda is as long as it is articulated clearly enough for them to know how to fit in with it, the fourth still barely exists, and the fifth lies in wait for opportunity.

Concentration of Power and Resources to Execute the Agenda

The first cohort condemns this stage, gesticulating wildly to the inevitable abuses that will follow from the fifth cohort. The second cohort does it anyway, knowing that it must be done for the execution of the agenda, and tries to limit the possibilities for corruption by the fifth cohort. The third cohort signs on to the agenda and begins to execute. The fourth begins ruminating on its weaknesses, and the fifth begins to exploit initial weaknesses, if any, to build a power base.

Neglect of Other Agendas not Incorporated into the Original Synthesis

First cohort persons are yelling again, now about some new agenda that escaped attention in the initial synthesis. Rarely, they may even be heard, as in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. The second cohort tries to accommodate but often judges that it can’t, realizing that only certain resources are available. The third cohort hates the continual rabble-rousing and wishes the first cohort would shut up. The fourth dreams of ways to “perfect” the original agenda. The fifth continues to gain ground. Later I will address the Thomas Jefferson approach to reformation. This is the point in the life cycle at which he advised termination of the present institution with reconstruction of an adjusted agenda. This approach is rarely implemented, (condemned as too turbulent) and in the vast majority of cases, an institution makes the irreversible transition to the next stage.

Co-option of Power and Resources by the Greedy

The first cohort condemns the re-emergence of fifth cohort power, but nobody pays attention. The second cohort sees its work as nearly done and retires. The third cohort becomes more and more facile with the present agenda and only supports proposed changes that seem to enhance self-interest. The fourth cohort starts efforts to improve upon the original agenda. The fifth cohort becomes more powerful, but is not yet strong enough to actively suppress its opposition.

Progressively More Aggressive Suppression of Advocates of Neglected Agenda

The first cohort becomes more strident but less powerful, as the fifth becomes able to suppress. The second cohort would like to join, but is tired from the last fight and doesn’t think prospects are good for winning a new one at the moment, and so is quiet. The third cohort becomes prosperous. The fourth cohort starts making lots of mistakes in “improving” the institution, since they weren’t there for the formative debates and don’t understand the need for certain crucial pieces. The fifth cohort comes into full bloom, organizing successful third cohort persons as “feeders” into their power machines, and using more and more repressive techniques to squash opposition.

Moral Decay

The squashing of the first cohort by the fifth is leading to actual changes in law or bylaw, to make it open season on first cohort members, and the institution is losing sight of its reason for existence. It now exists primarily for the enrichment of those that control it, who are changing law/bylaw for their own use, or who are later on not bothering to change law/bylaw and are just plain illegal with no fear of retribution. The second cohort is stirred from slumber and begins quietly organizing effective action. The third cohort is by now calling for relief but continues paying tribute to the apparently unstoppable master, the fifth cohort. The fourth cohort, barely realizing it opened the door for the fifth cohort by dismantling some of the constraints originally engineered by the second cohort after the last conflict, weakens and becomes less evident.

Collapse

First cohort fervor rises to fever pitch. The second cohort completes planning and begins to act. If the second cohort has estimated incorrectly, it is squashed, and reform/revolution must wait. If the second cohort has estimated correctly, it is powerful enough to begin to embarrass and weaken the fifth cohort, which is weakening already from the internal rot of moral decay and decadence. If third cohort persons, watching from a distance, can be convinced that their master is about to fall, they will enter the conflict and guarantee the success of reformation. So will be ushered in a new cycle.

Attitudes Towards Reformation
There are two well-described attitudes toward constructing an institution so that trauma from collapse and reformation are minimized. One is based on tediously careful planning, avoidance of conflict, and procrastination, and may be called the Adamsian view after John Adams, who articulated it in unsurpassed fashion in his post-Revolution correspondence with Thomas Jefferson. This attitude is to do so well in constructing an institution that fifth cohort activity is strangled, and will require many years to manifest in force. As this sentiment goes, “if I do my job well enough at the front end, society won’t have to face this again for years, and my children can live in the peace I never had.” The countervailing attitude, the Jeffersonian attitude, is that the longer an institution goes without correction, the worse are the moral wrongs, and the bloodier is the correction, so reform ought to come often and substantially. This is the basis for the espoused Presbyterian motto, “The Reformed Church, Always Reforming.” Jefferson offered the opinion that the Constitution ought to be periodically dissolved and Constitutional Conventions reconvened. He never settled on a definite interval but suggested every four or every eight years, and he was quite sure 20 years was way too long. His was definitely the minority opinion, and nothing approaching this language appears in the Constitution, which was made in Adamsian fashion intentionally quite hard to change and contains extremely severe restrictions on fifth cohort power consolidation, most of which have finally been changed or sidestepped.

Applications
The A. K. Rice Institute would probably make Adams proud of its ability to withstand its quite notable turbulence. The spectre of Jefferson, however, like Hamlet’s father, warns of hard times if stability is embraced in place of death and resurrection. Those who have been with AKRI from the beginning are in the best position to evaluate AKRI’s stability and the desirability of an Adamsian vs Jeffersonian approach to reformation. Possibly, AKRI may find this model useful in evaluating other institutions in our society. Ultimately, though, the best use of this analytical method could be the synthesis of some new institutional design that avoids the life-cyclic pattern of neglect, power consolidation, and turbulent disruption that characterizes our present institutions.