Weick, Karl E., 1984, 'Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems', American Psychologist, 39(1), 40–49.

• A small win is a concrete, complete, implemented outcome of moderate importance.

KarlWeick

Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems

Abstract: 사회 문제를 대규모로 생각하면 제한된 합리성을 초과하고 역기능적인 수준의 각성이 유발되기 때문에 혁신적인 행동이 불가능합니다. 사회 문제를 단순한 문제로 재구성하면 중간 정도의 중요성을 지닌 일련의 구체적이고 완전한 결과가 동맹을 끌어들이고 반대자를 저지하는 패턴을 구축하는 작은 승리의 전략이 가능합니다. 작은 승리의 전략은 건전한 심리학을 통합하고 정책 결정의 실용성에 민감합니다. The Massive scale on which social problems are conceived precludes innovative action because bounded rationality is exceeded and dysfunctional levels of arousal are induced. Reformulation of social issues as mere problems allows for a strategy of small wins wherein a series of concrete, complete outcomes of moderate importance build a pattern that attract allies and deters opponents. The strategy of small wins incorporates sound psychology and is sensitive to the pragmatics of policymaking.

사회과학 연구가 사회 문제 해결에 기여한 바가 상대적으로 적다는 데는 광범위한 동의가 있습니다. 이러한 평가의 공통점은 사회과학이 해결책을 도출하는 데 가장 적합하다는 가정인데, 사실 사회과학은 애초에 문제가 어떻게 정의되는지를 다루는 데 더 적합할 수 있습니다. There is widespread agreement that social science research has done relatively little to solve social problems. Common to these assessments is the assumption that social science is best suited to generate solutions, when in fact it may be better equipped to address how problems get defined in the first place.

적절한 솔루션의 내용은 종종 해결해야 할 문제의 정의에 함축되어 있기 때문에 결과에서 입력으로 관심을 전환하는 것은 사소한 일이 아닙니다. 문제 정의 과정에 초점을 맞추는 것은 심리학, 특히 평가 과정, 현실의 사회적 구성, 문제 발견 및 상황 정의에 대한 이해를 보다 실질적으로 통합하는 것입니다. A shift of attention away from outcomes toward inputs is not trivial, because the content of appropriate solutions is often implies by the definition of what needs to be solved. To focus on the process of problem definition is to incorporate a more substantial portion of psychology, specifically, its understanding of process of appraisal, social construction of reality, problem finding, and definition of the situation.

사회 문제가 사회의 상당 부분에 심각한 부정적 영향을 미치는 현상으로 인식되든, 널리 공유되는 사회적 기준과 실제 삶의 조건 사이에 상당한 불일치가 있든, 주장된 조건에 대한 불만이나 주장으로 인식되든, 큰 문제라는 데는 동의가 있습니다. 그리고 그것이 문제입니다. Whether social problems are perceived as phenomena that have a serious negative impact on sizable segments of society, as substantial discrepancies between widely shared social standards and actual conditions of life, or as assertions of grievances or claims with respect to alleged conditions, there is agreement that they are big problems. And that's the problem.

The massive scale on which social problems are conceived often precludes innovative action because the limits of bounded rationality are exceeded and arousal is raised to dysfunctionally high levels. People often define social problems in ways that overwhelm their ability to do anything about them.

To understand this phenomenon, consider the following descriptions of the problems of hunger, crime, heart disease, traffic congestion, and pollution.

...

아이러니하게도 사람들은 문제가 아니라고 생각하지 않으면 문제를 해결할 수 없는 경우가 많습니다. 높은 각성이 진단과 행동에 방해가 된다면, 덜 각성적인 '단순한 문제'를 공격함으로써 주의를 더 넓게 기울이고 행동을 더 복잡하게 만들 수 있습니다. 더 복잡하고, 더 최근에 학습되었으며, 변화하는 상황에서 더 많은 자극에 더 잘 반응하는 반응은 일반적으로 동적 문제에서 지속적인 변화를 가져올 가능성이 더 높습니다. Ironically, people often can't solve problems unless they think they aren't problems. If heightened arousal interferes with diagnosis and action, then attacking a less arousing "mere problem" should allow attention to be broader and action to be more complex. Responses that are more complex, more recently learned, and more responsive to more stimuli in changing situations usually have a better chance of producing a lasting change in dynamic problems.

큰 문제를 더 작고 덜 자극적인 문제로 재구성하기 위해 사람들은 눈에 보이는 결과를 낳고 시놉틱 솔루션으로 모을 수 있는 적당한 크기의 일련의 통제 가능한 기회를 식별할 수 있습니다. 이러한 작은 승리 전략은 사회 문제를 직접적으로 구성하고 간접적으로 해결함으로써 사회 문제를 해결합니다. 문제는 복잡한 과제를 수행하는 데 가장 도움이 되는 적당한 강도로 각성을 안정화하도록 구성됩니다. To recast larger problems into smaller, less arousing problems, people can identify a series of controllable opportunities of modest size that produce visible results and that can be gathered into synoptic solutions. This strategy of small wins addresses social problems by working directly on their construction and indirectly on their resolution. Problems are constructed to stabilize arousal at moderate intensities where its contribution to performance of complex tasks is most beneficial.

Arousal and Social Problems

Examples of Small Wins

Characteristics of Small Wins

A small win is a concrete, complete, implemented outcome of moderate importance. By itself, one small win may seem unimportant. A series of wins at small but significant tasks, however, reveals a pattern that may attract allies, deter opponents, and lower resistance to subsequent proposals. Small wins are controllable opportunities that produce visible results.

The size of wins can be arranged along a continuum from small to large. Lindblom's (1979) example of monetary control makes this point. Raising or lowering the discount rate is a smaller win than is the decision to use the discount rate as a method of monetary control. Both of those actions are smaller than introducing the Federal Reserve system, which is smaller than a change that eliminates the use of money entirely. Lindblom summarizes the example by drawing the generalization that a small change is either a change in a relatively unimportant variable (people tend to agree on what is an important change) or a relatively unimportant change in an important variable (Braybrooke & Lindblom, 1963, p. 64).

Small wins often originate as solutions that single out and define as problems those specific, limited conditions for which they can serve as the complete remedy. I emphasize the importance of limits for both the solution and the problem to distinguish the solutions of small wins from the larger, more openended solutions that define problems more diffusely (e.g., "burn the system down").

Once a small win has been accomplished, forces are set in motion that favor another small win. When a solution is put in place, the next solvable problem often becomes more visible. This occurs because new allies bring new solutions with them and old opponents change their habits. Additional resources also flow toward winners, which means that slightly larger wins can be attempted.

It is important to realize that the next solvable problem seldom coincides with the next "logical" step as judged by a detached observer. Small wins do not combine in a neat, linear, serial form, with each step being a demonstrable step closer to some predetermined goal. More common is the circumstance where small wins are scattered and cohere only in the sense that they move in the same general direction or all move away from some deplorable condition. Ideals, broad abstract ends, and lasting ambitions are less influential in defining a means-ends structure for a series of small wins than they are in articulating the specific trade-offs that occur when each win improves something at the expense of something else (Lindblom, 1979, p. 519).

A series of small wins can be gathered into a retrospective summary that imputes a consistent line of development, but this post hoc construction should not be mistaken for orderly implementation. Small wins have a fragmentary character driven by opportunism and dynamically changing situations. Small wins stir up settings, which means that each subsequent attempt at another win occurs in a different context. Careful plotting of a series of wins to achieve a major change is impossible because conditions do not remain constant. Much of the artfulness in working with small wins lies in identifying, gathering, and labeling several small changes thai are present but unnoticed (e.g., the Aquarian conspiracy, megatrends, back to basics), changes that in actuality could be gathered under a variety of labels.

Small wins provide information that facilitates learning and adaptation. Small wins are like miniature experiments that test implicit theories about resistance and opportunity and uncover both resources and barriers that were invisible before the situation was stirred up. Attempts to induce self-consciousness about sex references in speech revealed that language was more susceptible to change than had been thought earlier (e.g., Basic English never took hold); that opponents to language change were more dispersed, more stuffy, and less formidable than anticipated; that sex-biased language was more pervasive and therefore a stronger leverage point than people realized; and that language reform could be incorporated into a wide variety of agendas (e.g., APA Publication Manual revision). Language experiments uncovered entrenched sexism that had been invisible and created a more differentiated picture of allies, opponents, bystanders, and issues.

A series of small wins is also more structurally sound than a large win because small wins are stable building blocks. This characteristic is implicit in Simon's (1962) analysis of nearly decomposable systems and is illustrated by a fable (Kuhn & Beam, 1982):

• Your task is to count out a thousand sheets of paper, while you are subject to periodic interruptions. Each interruption causes you to lose track of the count and forces you to start over. If you count the thousand as a single sequence, then an interruption could cause you, at worst, to lose a count of as many as 999. If the sheets are put into stacks of 100, however, and each stack remains undisturbed by interruptions, then the worst possible count loss from interruption is 108. That number represents the recounting of the nine stacks of 100 each plus the 99 single sheets. Further, if sheets are first put into stacks of ten, which are then joined into stacks of 100, the worst possible loss from interruption would be 27. That number represents nine stacks of 100 plus nine stacks often plus nine single sheets. Not only is far less recounting time lost by putting the paper into "subsystems" of tens and hundreds, but the chances of completing the count are vastly higher, (pp. 249-250)

Small wins are like short stacks. They preserve gains, they cannot unravel, each one requires less coordination to execute, interruptions such as might occur when there is a change in political administration have limited effects, and subparts can be assembled into different configurations. To execute a large win such as ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment requires much greater coordination because interdependencies are more dense, timing is more crucial, and defections are a greater threat. If one crucial piece is missing, the attempted solution fails and has to be restarted.

Parts of Saul Alinsky's (1972) model for building community organization parallel the notion of small wins. Alinsky's three criteria for working goals are that the goals be highly specific, realizable, and immediate (Peabody, 1971, p. 525). If people work for something concrete, if people have an opportunity for visible success from which they draw confidence, and if people can translate their excitement and optimism into immediate action, then a small win is probable, as is their heightened interest in attempting a second win.

As an example of how these goals might be directed toward solving the problem of pollution, Alinsky suggests that people try to influence polluters by influencing the polluters' bankers. To do this, the normal time-consuming process of opening and closing a savings account is turned to advantage by having 1000 people enter the bank, each with $5, to open a savings account. Although this volume of business may paralyze the bank, it is not illegal and no bank is eager to be known as an institution that forcibly ejects depositors. Once the deposits have been made, the people come back a day later, close their accounts—again a time-consuming activity—and the process continues until this secondary target, being punished for someone else's sins, brings pressure to bear on the offender. Making mass changes in savings accounts is a specific, realizable, immediate, small, and controllable opportunity. It is just like defeating a second-rate team, changing the card catalog, finding a chairperson, suing five cities, staying sober for an hour, or introducing a forklift into a work procedure.

The Psychology of Small Wins

Cognitive Limitations

Affective Limitations

Stress

Enactment of Environments

The Politics of Small Wins

Conclusion