Posted by We witness so many so – called “change” initiatives in our everyday lifes, be it in business or politics, and often wonder what are the chances of them succeeding or failing.
Most of them are put together by “experts” and the executives / politicians in charge and then they are announced to the people, be it the employees of the corporation or the citizens, with the intent to convince them that this change is good for them and that they should support it, and along with it the leaders pursuing it.
I am most interested when this change initiative involves me directly, e.g. in case I work for the corporation that undergoes change, or am a citizen in the country where the elected leader promises change. I want to know what are the factors that make a change initiative succees or fail. In this article I discuss one of them, the open inquiry.
A critical issue in all of the change initiatives is to what extent they have been subjected to an inquiry that is open, in the sense that it involves stakeholders other than the decision makers and it enables them to question the leaders and designers of change and potentially challenge and modify underlying assumptions, principles, values and beliefs.
This is critical because people instinctively or not do not trust out-of-the-box “closed” change initiatives that have not been put to the test of an open discussion. Of course a person who has vested interests, e.g. whose power will increase as a result of the change, will not challenge it but unquestionably support it.
Roman, Republican or Early Imperial, Relief of a seated poet (Menander) with masks of New Comedy, 1st century B.C. – early 1st century A.D., Princeton University Art Museum
In addition to the inquiry itself, people always consider the openness to change of the leader(s) of the change initiative. In other words, they ask “how can they change others, if they are not able to change themselves?”
The leader therefore must demonstrate that she is capable of personal change herself, which implies that she is open to questioning of her behavior’s underlying assumptions and norms, and is willing during the process to suffer a complete loss of the unilateral control which the leaders usually exercise. In the process the leader may feel vulnerable, but this is not necessarily something negative.
Argyris and Schon (1) note that contrary to traditional wisdom, feeling vulnerable while encouraging enquiry is a sign of strength. Change is more likely when you advocate your principles, values and beliefs in a way that invites inquiry into them and encourages other people to do the same.
In view of the preceding arguments, I argue that it is more likely that a change initiative will succeed if its leader is open to change and espouses critical enquiry, compared to a leader who is an advocate of the control school that lets nothing out.
During this inquiry people will be able to ask questions and discuss with the leader(s) the various aspects of the change initiative. Even better, the change initiative will be formulated in such a way that it allows for adjustments to be made to it following the inquiry, and/or in during the inquiry process.
I find very interesting that it is rare for this issue to be raised during the planning, implementation and review of a change initiative.
At a time when everyone talks about and/or promises change, it is essential in my view to ask the simple question: “has this change initiative undergone a public, i.e. open inquiry?” Or is it the case that announcements were made and people were asked to enlist to the change camp?
The same approach would apply to politics. When a candidate or a party make a declaration of intent to change the status quo, to do things differently, why not invite people to a public discourse regarding change?
Reference
(1) Argyris and Schon, Organizational Learning II, Addison – Wesley, 1996