One way that anomalies are introduced into organizational paradigms is when values and preferences in society change. However, to the degree that the new social values are inconsistent with the prevailing paradigm, resistance emerges in the form of political clashes and an increase in ritualized activity, which act to reaffirm the paradigm that has been called into question (Rounds, 1979; see also Lipsky, 1975; Perrow, 1978; Zucker, 1977). Another way that anomalies are introduced is through the availability of technical information that indicates that the current paradigm is not working, which can bring about a paradigm shift in one of two ways (Rounds, 1981). The first way is through a confrontation between an individual (or a small constituency group), who rejects the most fundamental assumptions of the current paradigm on the basis of information that the system is not working, and the rest of the organization's members, who are acting in defiance of the negative information to preserve the prevailing paradigm. The second way is when an initially conservative action is taken to correct a generally recognized flaw in what is otherwise assumed to be a viable system. Here, the corrective measure exposes other flaws that, when addressed, expose more flaws, and so on, until enough of the system is called into question to prepare the way for a radical reconceptualization of the entire organization.