Getting buy-in on a big change

Some changes call for heroics where others will catch on later. Other changes need the buy-in of constituencies before anything much can happen. Lots of wonderful changes in the world get stuck because of the disconnect with those who need to buy-in. The change gets approached as a call for heroics when it actually needed constituencies (like customers, funders, higher-ups, journalists, academics, etc.) on board from the start. Here's a look at the different alternatives for getting buy-in on a big change prior to implementation.

1. The worst alternative is to criticize the status quo within earshot of those who maintain it, value it and defend it from attacks. This merely escalates the war between the advocates of change and stability. Each side demonizes the other and trashes any emergent understanding of the others' interests.
2. The second worst alternative presents the features and benefits of buying into the change. This comes across to the constituencies as pushy, hard-selling. It raises suspicions, undermines the presenter's credibility and make the constituencies more defensive. This approach usually has the effect of criticizing the status quo without making any mention of it. It's enough to imply that those who don't buy-in to the features and benefits of the change are stupid, stubborn or malicious.
3. The first of the good alternatives talks about the constituencies in terms they can relate to easily. It characterizes them as solving problems with available resources, doing what they think is best after considerable thought, and discovering what works for them better than other alternatives. In other words, it frames the constituencies as worthy of respect, admiration and collaboration. This approach creates a frame where the constituencies want to know more about the change because it seems like it might be a better solution to their problems. Their minds open and new decisions become possible.
4. The most effective alternative counts on the constituencies to believe in what they see and do first hand. The approach gives them tangible evidence to sort out. It like a free sample to taste or a test drive to get a "feel behind the wheel". It messes with their minds that ruled out the change from being feasible, functional or cost-effective. It walks them through demos, prototypes and proof of concept models. It runs a pilot project to show how it's done and to morph those first on board into big believers. The constituencies hear about the change they don't experience first hand from their trusted, high-cred, word-of-mouth sources.

The combination of the last two alternatives is practically irresistible. The constituencies have sold themselves on the change by their immediate experiences. They have also learned how to explain it others and justify it to themselves which makes them articulate spokespersons for others to get on board. They are further sold on the change by how they were sold the value of the change on their own terms. Getting buy-in on a big change falls into place with a winning combination of approaches.

Trying smarter for a change

Sometimes we succeed by simply trying harder to achieve our objective. Getting the lid off a jar or a garage cleaned out -- calls for trying harder. All it took was a little determination and focus on the goal. Too often, these successes get over-generalized. We jump to the conclusion that we can always succeed by trying harder. Most of the time, trying harder backfires after stringing us along with false hope that our determination will win out in the end.

Trying harder to succeed can make the original problem worse. It depends whether the problem has a life of its own. Living problems can retaliate when we mess with them. They can feed off our problem-solving attention. They can escalate the dynamics into a crisis or a "can of worms". They make us appear naive, gullible, simple minded or mistaken. Living problems say things like 'there's a lot more to this than meets the eye" or "it's not a simple as it first appears".

One way to recognize the warning signs of a living pattern is to consider if there are any cycles involved. Inert problems are straightforward. Living problems come back around to haunt us, go in in circles or flip flop back and forth between extremes.  They indicate there's a deeper level to the problem that we're ignoring. There make it obvious there is no solution at the level of the presenting problem. They redirect our efforts from what evident to what's inferred, implied or implicit.

We may have heard of the distinction between "trying harder and trying smarter". That does not mean we know how to try smarter. Usually our only options are to try harder or to quit. If we knew how to try smarter, we would not be trying harder in the first place. We'd already know how to try differently and not rely on determination to overcome the obstacles.

We try smarter when we get below the surface evidence to understand the underlying issues. Below bravado may be panic and desperate urges. Under bullying there are usually lurking insecurities and patterns of self contempt. Deeper than sales pitches we may find hidden agendas and long established successes with deceiving others.

When we encounter what keeps the problem so alive, we see ways to transform the complex dynamics. The problem we're inclined to fuss at may be the solution to a deeper problem. The issues that seem to be contested may be invitations to become more respected, understood and trusted. Chronic problems with making changes happen may show the way for the changes to fall into place once stability is valued equally. In each case, we've made the switch from "trying harder to trying smarter".

The collapse of efficient forests

When I read The Upside of Down last month, I became captivated by an explanation of how forests collapse. I reread those few pages four times over a two day period, allowing the concepts to tie into my understanding of change models, self-sabotage and renewal following a setback. For starters, here are the facets of a systemic collapse of forests:

• Forests are sandwiched between the soil conditions and local climate. Forests do not succeed in isolation from their contexts. How well they thrive depends on external factors, as well as internal dynamics.
• The fertile soil supporting a forest is teeming with potential novelty, variety and innovation. When a need arises for some new experiments, the soil delivers if it's not drought-stricken, water-logged, infested or starved for nutrients.
• Forests provide a feast for a phenomenal number of animals, plants, insects and microorganisms. Forests offer a wide variety of ecological niches to exploit.
• Successful invaders of those niches give back to the forest. These reciprocities are mutually beneficial and self-perpetuating.
• Forests progress toward greater efficiency. They reduce redundancies and commit to particular exploiters of their ecological niches.
• The effect on the forest of this greater efficiency is devastating. The lack of inefficiency moves the forest toward the brink of collapse.
• The loose coupling between the variety of reciprocities becomes tightly-coupled. The dynamics of the forest lose resilience and becomes rigid.
• Any forest can get stressed by an invasion of pests, a prolonged drought or a lightening ignition. Efficient, cohesive forests have eliminated their gaps, disconnects and buffers that could interrupt the wave of destruction. The attack takes down the entire forest.
• Forests with the resilience to rebound after an attack maintain inefficiencies. Their interdependencies are loosely coupled and open to continual disruptions. They support continued diversity and lack of conformity.
• Devastation gets localized in resilient forests because it cannot sweep across the entire system. The lack of efficiency, focused commitments and uniformity disrupts the spread of disease, fire or collapse.
• The openings created in the forest by the partial losses provide additional ecological niches for new species to exploit. The latent novelty in the soil provides new experiments. The forest rebounds with innovative partnerships and mutual benefits.

In the next post, I'll apply these to Web 2.0 and falling by the wayside.

Hard wired to flip/flop

Change that endures is more rare than changes that merely oscillate back to the status quo. We chronically flip/flop between extremes because it's human nature to balance every situation so it remains cohesive. We instinctively compensate for one-sided endeavors. The extremes join together in a dance that goes nowhere quickly. All the incessant changing amounts to chronic stagnation.

Freud was amazed when he discovered a death instinct in us. He was focused on the pleasure principle that drives the "Id". Initially, he understood all our wishful fantasies and infantile grandiosity, but not our desire for self destruction, self sabotage and self denigration. The death instinct now makes more sense as compensation for all that exuberance, vitality and buoyant optimism of the pleasure principle. It balances one extreme with another.

Animals give us pictures of the death instinct: a deer in headlights, a mouse spellbound by a snake's eyes or rabbit frozen with terror. Our bodies pump endorphins into our bloodstream when we are about to be mauled. We are feeling no pain when we're getting ripped apart or mutilated. I suspect the same high occurs when we're getting bullied, yelled at or humiliated. Our natural pain killers replace our fight/flight adrenal response.

There's also a connection between guilty pleasures and arranging for punishment. We don't stop with the indulgence, we want the pain too. We think we deserve retribution for our wicked enjoyments. We compensate for feeling good by feeling bad later.

When abuse happens, the experience of extremes is shared with a victim. One enjoys being abusive while the other takes secret satisfaction in getting abused. The predator and prey are bonded in an pattern of chronic oscillation. Both are asking for what they get by being so one-sided.

Persecution is addicting. Underdogs stay down for a long time. Victims repeat the pattern in new environments. Abuse is missed when it's removed. It's suspected that the experience of abuse is an escape from numbness, feeling nothing, going cold. There's a spark, fire and light brought to the darkness of self pity, powerlessness and paranoia -- by the terrifying violence.

All this explains why oscillation is so common. We are hardwired to compensate for other's extremes and our own excesses, even when it's painful or fatal. We are not programmed to change our programming.

At the movies

Another way to comprehend changing is the metaphor of being at the movies that I alluded to in my last posting. Here's the full treatment of that way to picture how we get stuck, oscillate between change and stability, as well as creating lasting changes.

When we're sucked into the movie, our life is stagnant. Life incidents are crazy enough, but nothing really changes. We can change jobs, partners or cities and get into the same troubles as before. The 2PM showing of the movie is the same as the 4PM, 6PM and 8PM screenings. We are in the movie as is replays itself. We have no access to the level where changes happen. Since we're powerless to change the movie, we tell lots of victim stories about our lives. We fetch for compliments, sympathy and protection from abuse. We're very vulnerable to predators, control freaks and bullies because we exude powerlessness in our movie.

When we take a seat at the movies, we can watch what happens on screen with detachment. We are in a "seat of power". We can get up and leave anytime. We sit there by choice and choose which flick we watch. We take responsibility for what we're seeing and pay for it up front. We cannot change what happens in the movie, but we can change our experience of the cineplex. When we get up and change theaters, we see a different movie. We act confidently and significant changes occur. The changes don't last because each movie ends. We're in a position to make things happen. We fill our garages, attics, basements and hard drives with accumulated things. We make a thing of change, learning and growth. We identify with acquisition of things more than the experiencing things. We're vulnerable to get sucked back into the the movie -- sitting this close to it, competing with other rivals and committed to doing something when a change is called for.

When we get up into the projector booth, we're in a position to change the film which changes the movie being watched. This level of change does not make change happens, it imagines the change that happens. The film is in our minds, not the world. There's no place to walk, bicycle, drive, take a train or fly to -- that will arrive at the place where "change happens". We simply change our minds for changes like this to occur. We see that the problem is really a solution in use. We see that the resistance to change is really cooperation. We envision the change that's already occurring. We perceive the difficulty with any current change program as a reflection of doing things the hard way, taking pride in heroic efforts, or valuing struggles to impress ourselves and others. We're vulnerable to take a seat in the theater again, anytime we miss making changes happen, taking action and looking busy.

When we become the lamp in the projector and the movie screen we shine on, we include every facet of the experience. We allow for what happens in the movie, actions to deliberately change movies, changing the film we have in mind, and projecting what we envision onto the screen of life. What we dream up comes true. We see it first in mind and then again when it happens along. We are the source of our experience on every level and take ultimate responsibility for it. We vulnerable to changing the film in the projector and delightful imagining alternatives again, since we're so close to the film when we're the lamp next to the film.

Two kinds of change

Back in the seventies, experts in cybernetics explored the ways change happened. They characterized several of the differences they observed as "first and second order change". Chris Argyris then relabeled these as "single and double loop learning".

These cyberneticians were focused on changes that did and did not last. The temporary changes appeared as oscillation to their trained eyes. The passing change went through cycles of progress and regress, getting nowhere quickly. Oscillation usually occurs when we are making change happen. Taking a mechanistic approach yields temporary advances counter-acted by resistance, sabotage and loyalty to the status quo brought to the forefront by the imposed change. We merely stretch the rubber band before it pulls back into place or force the pendulum to one side of it's relentless swinging.

Changes that endure (second order change, double loop learning) transforms the underlying premise. The change agents play with the rules instead of playing by the rules. They see the pattern being followed and alter the basis for that pattern to emerge. The rubber band is redeployed to hold a bundle of envelopes. The pendulum clock is relocated in it's entirety.

These system experts held as a basic truth that "a system cannot change it's own rules". It takes an outsider to be in a position to revise the basis for equilibrium. When the change agent revises the underlying premise, the upper level system reconfigures itself accordingly. The rubber band no longer stretches and snaps back in cycles when holding the pack of envelopes.

Second order change occurs when we let change happen as a response to the revision of the underlying rules. The obvious change emerges from the deeper shift in paradigm , presupposition or premise.

More recently, the underlying premise has been viewed as a story. We are all enacting stories that give our lives a sense of coherency and consistency. Our conduct emerges from the underlying story that patterns our lives. Change the story and we will act very differently. A change of story is a second order, enduring change.

Rather than mess around with how we're acting, we can revise where we are coming from. Rather than adopt New Year's Resolutions or self-improvement goals, we can create ourselves as a different person entirely. When we start messing with our online identities and avatars in games, we are learning this fluidity to spawn lasting changes in conduct. We've dropped out of oscillation, trying to improve our behavior and overcoming stubborn habits. We've entered the realm of transformation and renewal.

Related posts:
Revising underlying structure
Third and fourth order change
Hard wired to flip flop
Trying smarter for a change

Coming from empowerment

Last week, Adele Lin added some wonderful insights to the challenge of conducting empowering conversations:

And many thanks for sharing your tips here, it is true that there are much more opportunities to create empowering conversations than one would care to harness. For me at least, I know that I have passed up some of them because of (1) internal dialogue going on, and (2) sheer laziness. When you have some free time, would you kindly share with us as well, some examples of empowering questions in the context you described below, or in any other relevant situation to illustrate the methods mentioned? Much appreciated.

As I've pondered why empowering conversations are so rare, it occurred to me that it's not something that egos can do. Empowering conversations only succeed when we feel like conducting them and having those effects on others. They come from our hearts, not our heads. They are more akin to falling in love than following a procedure.

Our egos are designed to ensure our physical survival. They assume the evidence gathered by our five senses is an accurate appraisal of possibilities. From the ego's frame of reference, we are obviously separate from each other and dangerous to each other. We assume we are right to be judgmental and controlling when we conduct conversations. We don't intend to be dis-empowering. We are simply keeping safe in the presence of separate and dangerous creatures.

Our non-local minds are clear of fear. They do not support belief in the evidence of our five senses. When we are connected to our non-local minds, we respond in a spirit of unity, freedom and timelessness. We get a sense of what to see, say and support from out of nowhere that has an empowering effect on others. It dawns on our minds how to serve, care for and give to the person we're conversing with. We're coming from a place of endless generosity with no sacrifice on our behalf.

I suspect the empowering effect on others is a reflection of where we are coming from, rather than a product of what we say. The effect is in the spirit of our conversation rather than the words. So the questions I offer for you to ponder are not about the other person. They ask about premises for conducting the conversation in the first place:

• Where are you coming from when you're in the presence of someone you could speak with?
• What's the difference you experience between what you say in fear of danger and say in a spirit of freedom?
• What sense do you have other than your five physical senses to relate to others without fear?
• How are you feeling about having a conversation with this facet of all of us?
• What effect would occur to infect the others with your feelings without saying a word?
• How are you affected when the conversation comes back around immediately and in memories after?
• Who do you think you really are -- to come up with an inspired sense of what to see, say and support?

Empowering conversations

Yesterday, both Steve Roesler and Pete Reilly proposed change processes that involve what I call "empowering conversations". Changes become more likely to endure when the individuals involved have been reminded of their power. It appears to be human nature to become dis-empowered, especially in the contexts of coercion, compliance or conformity. This creates endless opportunities for us to empower people. When we respond this way, we are not giving people power they do not already have. We simply put them in touch with power they are overlooking.

I attended a Thanksgiving dinner this year with 30 people, where only 3 were relatives of mine. I had several opportunities to conduct empowering conversations with people around the two tables. Most of the people attended a concert last night, where I saw the lingering effects of how I talked with them last week. It was a wonderful reminder for me of how much difference it makes to empower others.

There are many ways to empower people that you can fine tune as you try them out:

• Giving people permission to deviate from the norm. Most get boxed in by the standards of conformity and lose sight of their freedom to be different.
• Reminding people of their greatness. Most people focus on how they have been criticized, negatively compared to others and labeled as inadequate.
• Showing people their hidden choices. Most see the obvious alternatives and fall short of exploring their options that are easily overlooked.
• Complicating overwhelming constraints. Most take limitations literally and miss out on: how there's two ways to seem them, when they don't apply and times when the reverse is true.
• Exposing unforeseen possibilities. Most people only consider incremental changes and make progress a step at a time, rather than explore transformational changes of their underlying premises, assumptions and strategies.
• Reversing the endless struggle. People get stuck on uphill battles where letting go will only cause them to backslide, instead of seeing how everything will fall into place on a different path.
• Putting their imagination to work. Most people conflate their current evidence with a harsh reality to be faced realistically, rather than imagine what they want to create, how they want to grow and ways they want to learn.

With these reminders to reflect upon, most people feel more powerful for a long while after the conversation.

Changing by shadow boxing

When we're being idealistic, we have a shadow that is cynical. When we are full of pride, our shadow is disgraceful. When we think we've got the right answer, our shadow is loaded with how wrong we actually are. When we confident in the status quo, our shadow will shatter our confidence with unwelcome changes.

In response to my comment yesterday on Steve Roesler's post:Change and "Hurry Sickness at Work, Steve asked me:

While reading your piece, it occurred to me how much time is often needed to allow people to bargain--or "shadow box"--until their emotional arms get tired. It's at that point that they become ready to move on and re-think their position. Do you find a similar dynamic during your work?

I rarely find my clients getting talked out. Their need to get validation seems insatiable. However, the process does look like shadow boxing to me. When their shadow wins the fight, both sides can be right. There's a resolution by losing any positional stance and embracing the missing half.

When the end of the fight is near, we discover how to let go of our opposition to our opponents. We realize we are looking in a mirror at a reflection of our antagonistic outlook. We comprehend how we're seeing what we're being. We are really looking at a picture of where we're coming from and how we're relating to unacceptable differences. We uncover new choices to change our perceptions, filter reality differently and put a different spin on the evidence.

I help unhappy campers get to the end of the fight sooner by complicating their positional stance against their shadow. Rather than make them wrong, resist their resistance or oppose their opposition, it works for me to interject comments like:

• I see you're side of the story now that you've made that perfectly clear. I wonder how this looks on the back side?
• You've got the evidence well defined. I wonder what's hidden from view here?
• You're right that this issue is at stake. Have you noticed how this issue is not always the same every time?
• You've got to see things your way until you're faced with an alternative that does not make you wrong. I wonder when that might come along?

These comments "get out of their face and into their corner". They open closed minds with my open mind rather than bringing my closed mind to the mirror. These comments also make their shadow palatable and accessible to them. Shadows show up as unacceptable, intolerable and threatening. They are argued against on the basis of the fortified, self-righteous stance. There's no way to see good in them because they are obviously bad.

When our shadow wins any fight, it's a humbling experience. In hindsight, we we're being conceited, arrogant, obnoxious or omnipotent. When we bite the dust or get off our high horse, our hot button has been pushed. We lose our confidence, composure and comprehension of the situation. We're feeling shattered, betrayed and disoriented.

This is no time to kick start another change, insist on their rethinking or impose more pressure. We already have ignition and liftoff. The self-organizing process will do the rest. Change and stability then go hand and hand. The opponents comprise valuable diversity and essential components. The two right answers are two sides of one coin. The dilemma is really a paradox.

Revising unstoried possibilities

Another change model worth sharing comes from the field of "narrative therapy". In this model, we are trapped inside dominant narratives congruent with our upbringing and successful rebellions from family systems. We live out the same old story -- day after day. We cannot change because the level to be changed is deeper than our conscious choices and decisions. We act within prescribed limitations and assume "this is as good as it gets".

Any dominant narrative is "problem-saturated". It captivates us because it is loaded with stories of what does not work, what cannot happen and what always goes wrong. We argue for those limitations that we learned from "the school of hard knocks". We know from experience not to think differently, assume otherwise or expect a change. We're convinced we've discovered the facts of life that cannot be revised without becoming foolish, naive or overly-optimistic. We know how to be realistic and play by those rules.

There are other possibilities to be lived that exist outside our dominant narrative. They remain inconceivable or hypothetical while they are kept "unstoried". There are held as an idea in isolation from our personal history. They do not make "narrative sense" of our lives. There's no way to be a character in the prescribed scenario, explain our motives with a congruent back story, or act out a different possibility. The one or two times we experienced that exceptional possibility, we think we were "out of character", "out of control" or "out of our minds".

We successfully adopt and live out these exceptional possibilities when they become storied. We complicate our character identity to include this. We see incidents in our past history that lead up to this. We imagine how people in our network are delighted and appreciative of this change in us. We foresee desirable outcomes from acting this way in our world. We respond to opposition, challenges and confrontations from our confidence in this alternative story. We convey that we're living from a different set of premises, or to the beat of a different drummer.

When we see our lives as stories, we welcome the drama of life into it. We value the antagonists that provoke us to solidify our new outlook. We enjoy the setbacks that occur when we regress to our old story. They serve as reminders to catch ourselves falling for temptations, old habits and patterned reactions. We get the sense we are really the author of our lives and free of those captivating dominant narratives.

Stability and stagnation

There are two ways for things to NOT change: stability and stagnation.

Stability is a feature of a system in equilibrium. Balance is maintained in a way where things stay the same. We value stability for consistency, reliability and familiarity. We count on stability to be there when we need it, to deliver what we're expecting and to maintain the same level of quality.

Stagnation is the feature of a broken system. Balance is betrayed by a devotion to "no way, no idea, no change". There is no dynamic equilibrium or adjusting to environmental inputs. Arrested development overrides evolutionary pressures. Growing and changing are postponed until further notice. We value stagnation for it's manageability, passivity, and docility when we are in control and positions of power over others. We count on stagnation to submit to routine bullying, abuse and domination.

Stagnation is highly provocative. We get incensed by arrested development and spurred to make change happen. We become identified with change and make a thing of it. We oppose stagnation with battles, arguments and tighter controls. We are in no position to let change happen or trust a process, change model or system to yield a natural change.

Stagnation does not lead to stability. When we're getting out of stagnation, the next phase is chaos, instability and unpredictability. All hell has to break loose before stability emerges. We need to move from stagnation to a position "far from equilibrium". It's time to invoke the self-organizing dynamics to emerge at the border between continuity and discontinuity.

What emerges from chaos is usually a transformation, not an incremental change. The change changes everything instead of making a slight adjustment. There's a whole new game to play. There's an unforeseen landscape of opportunities to explore. There's a different story to tell about the ways the new experiences make sense. In hindsight, we did not make transformation happen. It happened because stagnation provoked instability.

Inevitable changes

When changes are inevitable, we are in a position to let them happen and support their emergence. It's unusual for human nature to take this approach however. As Steve Roesler said insightfully in a comment on Fallout from a system:

Attaching undue importance to something that is inherently natural creates angst when angst is least desired. Indeed, the human condition will respond by acting and reacting in ways that are counterproductive to the task at hand.

Inevitable changes prove to be disastrous when we cling to the status quo. Emergent changes involve creative destruction as well as the replacement of current structures with better systems. They offer the choice between jumping ship or going down with the ship. They define past success as imminent failure and obvious losers as the way to win. The "first become last and the last become first" when inevitable changes are taking effect.

Going with the flow of inevitable changes calls for letting go of our established sources of security, stability and reputation. These changes transform our clinging into suffering, insistence into stupidity and determination into self-defeat.

I've wondered about the nature of our ability to let go for many years. It seems to require being clear of fear. It appears to be more prevalent when we have a deep reflective practice. It helps to have done some "pre-sensing" to get a sense of what the future holds.

Inevitable changes are usually drastic. They "change everything" rather than making slight adjustments. They are unforeseeable down in the trenches because they change the entire landscape above the day-to-day struggles. Inevitable changes prove to be "life-changing" openings to entirely new ranges of possibilities. They are very threatening when we are "on the take" of a system of exploitation, profiteering and dependency on the status quo.

Inevitable changes translate into manageable steps when seen as an evolving process. Every taxonomy I've proposed on this blog shows ways to take things a step a step at a time and trust the process all along. When we can see the phases we're going through, we can stop clinging to the past and trusting our fears to keep us out of danger.

Fallout from a system

When we think of change as something to do, we cause problems. We think we can fix what's broken, correct what's mistaken and change what is stuck. We are unconsciously resisting what's persisting and opposing the opposition. We play into the perpetuation of what "needs changing"

When we think of change as something that happens, we cause solutions. We imagine change as the fallout of our approach, a side effect of handling the current issues and the repercussion of our involvement. We play into the emergence of effective changes.

It's very tempting to cause stagnation when we want to make change happen. We idealize the necessary change and invalidate the current stability. We make a thing of recognizing dangers and endanger the ecology that maintains the current balance.

It's very possible to set up the eventual sabotage of change when we show people how important the change has become. We see those who change as allies and those who don't as enemies. We make it clear we don't understand others, have not changed our minds or cannot learn from resistance. We demonstrate how we are "part of the problem" with our ill-conceived leadership. Our actions say "buyer beware of this hype" while our words say "change before its too late".

We can realize change as the fallout of a dynamically stable system. We expect the change to occur as part of our systems rebounding from setbacks and adapting to new variety resourcefully. We encourage the reflecting, realizing and responding that naturally occurs in the presence of these new inputs. We allow these processes to unfold and yield beneficial side effects.

We can even create conditions where transformation occurs. We realize there are both: ongoing processes of resilience that yield incremental changes and occasional processes that yield changes in how changing occurs. When we include the deep change with the immediate adjustments, both occur as they are called for. We validate the playing by the rules and playing around with the rules. We welcome winning the game and changing the game to benefit more constituencies. Then we are the system that yields incremental and transformational changes in a context of dynamic equilibrium.

Changing contexts instead

When we're creating problems for ourselves by imposing changes with our coercive tactics, we're in a context of controlling and opposing others. When we change to a context of understanding and relating to others, changes fall into place.

When we find that people are not learning from our instructional designs, we're in a context of "teaching by the book". When we change to a context of "learning from the learners", we utilize any misunderstanding to create "teachable moments" and "immediate object lessons".

When we're tormenting ourselves about not making sense to others, we're in a context of isolation and alienation. When we change to a context of connection and empathy, we first make sense of others and then relate to their sense of themselves.

When we're caught up the in the curse of knowledge that tempts us to be too informative, we're in a context of superior authority over others. When we change to a context of equality and collaborative creativity, we bring out new possibilities in others.

When we're escalating conflicts, arguments and differences, we're in a context of judgmental distance. When we change to a context of appreciative inquiry, our fascination with their contribution reveals common ground and inventive uses for the diversity of outlooks.

When we're imagining that changes occur by making progress in a straight line, we're in a context of mechanisms, factories and heroics. When we change to a context of organic cycles, we realize changes as they naturally grow, evolve and adapt to our presence.

When we think we're observing factual evidence, we're in a context of self-delusion and conceit. When we change to a context of seeing ourselves in a mirror, we take responsibility for what shows up and change ourselves to change the reflection in the mirror.

Distributed change models

Wendy Wickham added some very useful comments to yesterday's post on change: Questioning the feasibility of change.

In an ideal world - organizational change would occur somewhat organically. There is a known problem that is clear to all. The change process is triggered only when a solution presents itself.

The idea of changes triggered by solutions ties into a favorite approach of mine called "appreciative inquiry". When changes are triggered by perceived problems, we get more problems. We commiserate some more on how bad things are and speculate on things getting worse. We dwell on the pothole instead of the paved road. We see our way to further suffering, misery and self pity.

When changes are triggered by solutions, we get more solutions. We collaborate on the basis of how resourceful we are. We build on what's working to resolve more issues. We see our way to further satisfaction and creativity.

It shouldn't simply be a matter of explaining "why" it would be better. You (and the affected parties) will figure it out from discussing "if" it will be better. It's getting people involved in the DECISION for change rather than the buy-in.

Buy-in implies a done deal from on high; a "plan from the man". Bottom up innovations, distributed intelligence models, flat organizations and social networking content generation -- all dismiss "buy-in". It's time to "stick it to the man" and rebel against imposed changes. As Wendy suggests, the time to discuss the change is before the decision gets handed down.

The people close to the action (users, problems, issues, patterns of response) can call the shots better than those with the reins in their hands. Top-down decisions are usually overly-simplistic and unresponsive to systemic complexities. The decisions "throw money" at problems and alienate the constituencies. Bottom-up decisions factor in more variety, complexity and existing resources. They unify and validate the contributors to successful change efforts.

The action of change is so much more glamorous than meandering around the office gathering opinions from the underlings. Opinion-gathering can be demoralizing and grueling if you have your heart set on a particular decision.

Consumer polling occurs when products are designed and getting tested. Product design teams go watch users in the field deal with their problems before creating new products. When we learn from the implementors before change is conceived, the final solutions will work far better. The networked market for the change gets into the act. The change evolves organically, as Wendy said. The revise practices come about through authentic conversations, relationships and collaborations.

Questioning the feasibility of change

When changes are not feasible, the rank and file fold their arms, roll their eyes and say "here we go again". The implementors hold the cards and resist the revolution. They know the plan will appear to fail in execution because the plan is ill conceived without their input, insights and perspectives. No amount of convincing them will revise how the change is not yet feasible in their minds.

Yesterday, a bounty of wonderful comments were added to Steve Roesler's blog post: Change: Success Starts Before the Change Begins. They all revealed ways for the feasibility of a change to be increased by investing in relationships before beginning a change effort. The transformation of the mutual context makes the change appear less threatening, imposing and manipulative. People become more trusting, accepting, responsible and strategic when engaged in authentic relationships. They return the favor of getting trusted and accepted by leaders who take that as their responsibility.

As Steve said:

I wonder what would happen if we were all required--before asking for some kind of change--to clearly explain "why" it will be better and "relationships" required to make it succeed and endure? The rule would be: no action can be started until everyone says "OK, I get it". They don't have to think it's wonderful--just that it is well thought-out, has a business benefit, and there is additional clarity about the human factors.

I've found in my consulting that changes become more feasible when the feasibility is formally questioned. Rather than assume the change will happen, I assume it won't until proven otherwise. I question whether it makes sense to buy-into the big idea. I wonder whether the right people will own it and follow through on the implementation details. I suspect there is a legacy of failed implementation from previous change efforts that dismisses the new change out of hand. I look for signs of the proposed change "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs", doing more harm than good and disrupting the under-valued heroics.

When an organization is allowed to question the sanity, validity and feasibility of the change, the members buy-into the process of finding a feasible change to create. They realize they have some say-so, control and power to use wisely. Their viewpoints become more comprehensive and long range. They consider more tradeoffs and see both sides of more issues. They stop opposing the change as a knee-jerk reaction and consider more alternative scenarios, criteria and combinations of intentions. They agree to disagree, see validity in opposing ideas and welcome diverse outlooks.

That's quite a change from "making change happen". I wonder if it feasible to stop imposing changes?

Sensing and pre-sensing

In the 2005 book: Presence, Peter Senge and his co-authors recommend an unusual change model. Ray Sims briefed us on this "U Theory" a couple months ago. The authors suggest we can get into a state of mind where we can foresee emergent changes. Rather than make changes happen, we can discover what changes are coming about and help them along. They suggest that countless successful entrepreneurs have tuned into these emergent changes and capitalized on serving them.

The authors call the frame of mind for foreseeing emergent changes "sensing". The book gives examples from meditation practice and nature retreats. I have my own ways to describe that state of mind:

• Looking through the eyes of the other, seeing through their point of view
• Identifying with the other, becoming one with their experience
• Getting out of the other's face and into their corner, working a deal in their best interests
• Relating to the other's context, serving their agendas with compassion
• Caring for the connection between us all, linking the common concerns
• Giving to the whole what we intend to receive, sharing without limitation
• Sensing the pattern that ties everything together, embracing the web of interdependencies

When we "get our head into this place", different visions come to mind. We sense what changes are in process. We see how desirable outcomes are falling into place. We can picture how the change requires the current crisis, setback or breakdown. We envision how to go with the flow of what is coming about. The authors call this "pre-sensing" that follows "sensing" the connection with everything involved. We are being the combination while separation is evident, leading the imagined change.

With the emergent change in mind, we naturally prototype ways to serve it. We discover what works for others, provides the intended value and facilitates the necessary changes. We explore how to get the bugs out and accomplish the ends more efficiently. We learn from practicing the prototype how to refine it. We function as quintessential entrepreneurs.

No problem changing

On his blog: All Things Workplace, Steve Roesler has been running a very useful series of posts on change. Yesterday, in response to a comment I left on episode seven: Change: Nah, I'd Rather Die. Really, Steve shared his familiarity with an exemplary "change master"(thanks Steve!).  This provides a wonderful example of the possibility I'm exploring with how to disappear the problems of getting change to happen.

1. After diagnosing the organizational situation, he made a well-informed, unilateral decision to implement certain systems. These are all new to the employee population but make sense to them. However, they are also radical.

2. He spends huge amounts of time traveling, listening, acknowledging, and coaching individuals and groups. He doesn't move from the message at all. It's clear what needs to happen.

The result, as of now: People are following his lead, believe in his decisions, and are willing to do what it takes to make the changes for the greater good. There is no question he won't answer, no phone call or email left unreturned, and all involved FEEL understood. Even if the discomfort level is high because of the learning curve it doesn't matter. People will tell you that things have already changed as a result of his willingness to move ahead while constantly expressing his trust that they will "get it" and look back after each step.

To work with the people being made uncomfortable by change like this, I'm proposing that two hurdles had to be cleared by this leader:

• Instead of thinking others had to be the first to change, it had to become clear to him (or her) by reflective practice, how the situation calls for being: the change, the first to change and the example of changing without a problem.
• Instead of seeing all the competing frames as obstacles to change, they would appear to be "no problem" to nurturing the change and understanding those involved.

There are at least four ways for the obstacles, interference and sabotage of change efforts to be "no problem". A "change master" like the one Steve characterizes could be functioning with any of these concepts in mind.

The conditions are ripe for this. When we see the big picture, we realize when and how changes need to occur. We see extremes that attract their opposite, stagnation begging for a breakup and tensions seeking resolution. We have a sense of timing for making changes and for assimilating a recent change.

The process includes this. When we understand how changes unfold in phases, we have a way to value all the setbacks. Rather than control the happenstance to stick with a plan, we trust what occurs as "part of the process". By allowing what unfolds, we set a tone of not resisting, complaining about or blaming others.

The meaning of this is up for grabs. When we see a change meaning different things to different people, we encourage their subjective interpretations. Rather than put a lid on spin, we validate the ways each makes sense at first. We then nurture changing perceptions applied to the change as if the meaning is idiosyncratic and evolving.  We position "changing frames" as part of the change process, rather than an obstacle to overcome.

The story of this continues to unfold. When we see a narrative structure in the change, we live in suspense. We wonder what will happen next to surprise us. We expect the unexpected and avoid disappointment. We welcome reversals that keep things interesting and value the antagonists who bring out the best traits in the protagonists. We see foreshadowing of turning points and payoffs when people change their minds.

Without practicing these ways of "no problem changing", staying on message will backfire. Expecting people to get it will come across as controlling their intentions and coercing them to stop succeeding on their own terms. The people will feel they are being forced to change instead of feeling understood. They will be clear what they are supposed to get and will be clearly opposed, defiant and hurt.

When changing is no problem, it works to stay on message and be clear how people need to get it. The people are not the problem. Their hesitation or resistance is not a problem. The change is not a problem either. Instead there is the timing of this, the process to go through for this, the evolving meaning of this and the fascinating story of this.

Technorati tags: change models, organization development, leadership

Competing frames taking effect

In Framing our constituencies, I proposed a way to revise how we frame the process of change and those getting changed. We are responsible for how we see things and act accordingly. It makes sense to give top priority to changing our own outlooks, understanding and basis for taking action.

Once we grasp how we already are in a position to change our approach, we can consider more of the total picture. If we begin with changing others before ourselves, we maintain the problem -- unaware of how we do this. By changing ourselves first, we dismantle our contribution to the problem's underlying dynamics.

Besides the framing of constituencies that we can do and change, there are at least three other frames taking effect and competing with our own:

Constituencies get framed by membership in groups and collusion with like-minded individuals. We get framed by how we are required to comply, expected to act, rewarded for conformity and penalized for deviance. We learn from our shared experiences of getting into trouble and staying out of trouble. We hide inside our comfort zone, role congruence and group identity.

Constituencies get framed by opposing agendas and chronic conflicts with others. Starting with our getting socialized and disciplined as kids, we find out how we're understood by others to really be deviant, defective or deficient according to their standards. We get told to stop thinking, feeling or doing what we were inclined to do. We start living under the impression of what works to minimize these conflicts and get others' approval. We also live inside a story of how far we can push things, antagonize others and provoke retaliation without destroying the system.

Constituencies get framed by successful experiences with growing, changing, learning and creating. We find out how to grow up and to outgrow our past. We realize we can make more sense than people around us. This inclines us to follow our internal process of reflecting or application of taxonomies to change what makes the most sense to do. We discover how to reliably get results, meet objectives and accomplish intentions. We develop momentum, conviction and determination that eliminates failing, losing out or doing the wrong thing.

When we effectively frame our constituencies and the process of change, we are competing with these other frames. We can get nowhere showing respect to someone who has internalized a boatload of disrespect. We can help others be more effective in a way that appears self defeating to their predetermined success patterns. We can reconfigure ourselves to "be the change" and "lead by example" and watch everyone else "be a contrary change" and "lead in the different direction".

For our own framing of our constituencies to win out over their competing frames, we need for those other frames to be "no problem". We can disappear the evidence of a problem and "win without a battle". . To get there I'm proposing a change model as follows:

• First ignore the competing frames to focus on changing ourselves
• Second take stock of the competing frames as I've done here
• Third change how the competing frames appear from problem to no problem
• Fourth let the competing frames disappear as they appear to be no problem

(to be continued)

Technorati tags: change models, organization development

Sense of timing from pervasive connectivity

Connectivity is becoming more pervasive. We're getting what's going on online while we're hanging out with others. Mobile technologies and access are increasing our connection to a different realm of information, change and perspectives. We are making a similar adaptation to the time when people stopping huddling around the big radio in their houses and took a portable radio with them to the beach.

McLuhan suggested that new media always have four effects: extension, reversal, obsolescence and retrieval. I see these effects occurring with this emerging, pervasive connectivity:

Extension: Being online anywhere and anytime will extend our sense of timing. We will feel more in tune with everything that's happening. Our minds will be more capable of wondering when to do something and what's going to happen next. It will become routine to experience what we now call "uncanny timing": being in the right place at the right time, happening along with fortuitous timing, experiencing synchronicities. We'll usually be prepared when the time comes. We'll consistently spend the right amount of time in time to make a timely comeback. Our sense of timing will be more powerful, reliable and important in our lives.

Reversal: Pervasive connectivity will over-extend Web 2.0 and cause it to lose devotees. We are taking social networking to an extreme where it will seem like too much of good thing. Getting bombarded by updates from friends and requests to be friends -- will induce burnout. Twitter and Facebook are leading the way from progress to reversal where it's evident how superficial networking: comes with the cost, does more harm than good or has reached the point of diminishing returns.

Obsolescence: Pervasive connectivity will retire broadcast models of distribution. Broadcast content will go straight to archive where it can be tagged, viewed when needed and linked to from other digital documents. Broadcasters will upload to servers just like all of us "amateur" content generators. Goodbye seat time, time slots, scheduled time, reruns and rescheduled times. Offerings that are timed by the constraints of the delivery source will be replaced by the timing of the customer, viewer, subscriber or learner. Content with no sense of the customers' timing will be obsolete.

Retrieval: Pervasive connectivity will retrieve "living under the stars". We will function in our worlds like shepherds and hunter gatherer cultures. We will live by our wits and sense of timing. We think like alphabets and printed pages have not fragmented and sequenced our perceptions. We be immersed in an acoustic, oral and aural world. We'll read the signs for changes and listen to the surroundings for perspective. We will learn from what happens, shows up and comes about -- to trust the timing of serendipity.

Technorati tags: McLuhan, connectivity