You’ve heard it said; People Hate Change. But it’s not true.
Look at all the things people do. We travel, we start hobbies, we renovate and redecorate. We read self-help books, go to gyms, change our look, our bodies and even our names. We switch careers, we retrain, we start businesses. We get married, we get divorced. We vote, we protest, we overthrow governments. We change just about everything, all the time.
We like change… we just don’t like having it done to us. Give us a genuine opportunity to have some authorship in what’s going on and we’ll lead the way.
Of course, there’ll always be a few who just won’t budge; people who’ll resist, undermine and even sabotage a change, no matter how important it might be. In my experience, these individuals are either a) comfy or b) scared. The Comfy will never embrace any change that threatens their cosy little gig, whereas The Scared can make the change so long as every one of their fears has been fully addressed.
But I’m beginning to think some fight change because they’ve been trained to by the very organisation that now desperately needs a more agile and fluid workforce.
See, nobody sets out to hire rigid, narrow-minded people, but years of micromanagement and a merciless tyranny of procedures and protocols foster a culture of compliance and a total surrender to The Way We Do Things Around Here. (Don’t know what I’m talking about? Call any government department, service utility or even your local bank and make a request… anything will do).
It’s almost as if the organisation doesn’t trust its own people, so it invents increasingly labyrinthine systems to make sure that there’s only one way anything can happen. They hire perfectly clever people but quickly force them to behave like machines, and after a few years of working like that, it’s easy to find yourself thinking that way as well. Which is great if you need a completely reliable, consistent and failure-free performance.
But it comes with a pretty hefty price tag. For a start, you can forget about Innovation, as with everyone thinking the same way you’re going to struggle to find a fresh idea.
And good luck trying to cope in a rapidly changing century like the one we’re in right now with a workforce that’s been compelled to do the same thing, with the same people, in the same way for more than about five years, as many will have rusted into place by then.
Unless you start small. Pick some small changes they could make for themselves, just to get them back into practice. Better still, let them decide what needs fixing and give them the freedom and resources to fix it. Let them identify the changes that matter most to them, the ones that could make their lives and jobs so much better, with the minimum of time and effort.
People want change. They might just be a little out of practice. So let ‘em practice.
Gary
Hi Jason
Certainly concur with this one. Change has lost its positive connotation and now is replaced by terms such as ‘restructure’ or ‘downsizing.’ It is a term to be feared because it is now associated with negativity and uncertainty in terms of what is or might be going to happen.
Ever notice we don’t celebrate change much either. Why is that? And doesn’t every new leader have some ambition to make alterations and shape it into his/her own vision? Surely they have some entitlement to build and lead a community.That’s why they are in the position.
I think we focus too much on the ‘what’ in terms of change and not the ‘why’ or ‘how.’ The latter two words are the real change agent ones. We can’t expect leaders to have it all. Just enough deputies that have the why and how parts clear in their own minds and the savvy to include people to carry out the changes. Why is this such a difficult skill to both see and master for our leaders?
Jason
Hey Gary, thanks for the comment, you raise a lot of issues we’re planning to explore a little deeper in future posts (and a couple we hadn’t thought of yet) so stay tuned. Why (and when) did ‘change’ lose its positive flavour and become a source of dread? Believe it or not,’Making a Difference’ is still the deepest motivator of many of the groups we work with, so I wonder if the negative association has come from imposed change that was poorly conceived, communicated and/or implemented. Interested in your thoughts about the Why, What and How of change, because I’ve never encountered any individual with a comprehensive grasp of all three topics, which is yet another reason to abandon the messianic ideal of the individual leader (the ‘uber-person’) and seriously explore the concept of distributed leadership that orchestrates different thinking styles of multiple contributors to join all the dots between Vision, Decision and Action. Your thoughts?
Gary
Hi Jason
Yes in essence the ‘what’ is the easier one to deal with leaders because the genesis of the idea comes from the leader or a group or from a larger umbrella organisation. Most leaders have some vision or direction; that’s why they are in the big chair in the first place!
The ‘why’ is the blending ingredient because it links the what and validates it by giving it a binding philosophy. In my field (education) the why is ostensibly about pedagogy. In my view, the why has to be at least equal to the what and is where collaboration is a catalyst for successful change. In the ‘why’ people want to know what the motivation is and what is the benefit to them and the organisation.
The ‘how’ is a completely different skill set. It is all about the selection of people and their ability to convey the what and why but also have a high degree of EQ to implement and bring others with them or to take the lead.
I see thinking styles as hugely important here. It is an internal part of our pedagogy in the school. As an educator, I think recognising the humanity of my students (by being aware of their learning styles) has equal weight of importance as to what I am teaching. Like to talk more on this if it comes up.
Gary:-)
Jason
Funny you should say that, Gary. We base a lot of our approach to leadership, change and (especially) innovation on the orchestration of different thinking styles. In fact I just wrote a magazine article arguing that the challenges facing us over the next century will not be solved by a single human being, or even a single mindset but through the strategic harnessing of just about every kind of thinking, with the possible exception of defeatism.
Anyway, I know we’ll have a lot to say about it in coming posts and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
hgh releaser review
Hi there would you mind sharing which blog platform you’re working with? I’m planning to start my own blog soon but I’m having a hard time making a decision between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your design and style seems different then most blogs and I’m looking for something unique. P.S Apologies for getting off-topic but I had to ask!
Jason
Happy to share! Our blog was created in WordPress by a very talented young designer, but I can’t tell you for certain which of those two facts explains why we look a little different to most of the blogs out there (although my guess is a clever brain can make just about anything work so I’d probably give credit to Alex at Mindsweeper and not the software he used, which we chose because its so easy to use.) But take our design as an example of what WordPress can do, so good luck with your blog and thanks for tuning in! Now to get back on-topic, I’d be keen to hear any comments you might have on the topics we cover or any thoughts you’d like to bring to the conversation; we know you’re out there now so let’s hear what you think!