The Change Agent’s Handicap
Peter de Jager is a provocative Speaker, Writer and Consultant. His primary focus in on how we manage change, technology and the future.
In addition to speaking at conferences worldwide, he's also writen monthly columns for CIO Magazine and Computerworld Canada.
His goal is always to question what we think is so, and in so doing perhaps open up new opportunities.
If you'd like permission to reprint any of Peter's articles, please contact him directly.
You can contact him at
pdejager@technobility.com
Or sign the Guest Book and he'll get back to you.
While there are other ways to define the role of a Change Agent (CA), the CA’s most commonly assigned and practiced mandate is to bring about a pre-determined Change within a community. A CA is typically assigned the task, “Make this happen!” and it is their responsibility to force/cajole/steer/entice/motivate etc. etc. the community to move towards a specific destination. The CA fails in their task if ‘this’ doesn’t happen as envisioned by those who assigned them to their role of CA. In the real world, the CA typically does not have a lot of wiggle room in their assignment.
Regardless of the specific task assigned to a CA, all CAs, without exception, must function within the context of how people respond to Change in general. It is this fact (obvious observation?) which spawns the Change Agent’s unavoidable handicap.
How do people respond to “Change in General”? The most honest and accurate answer is that
we don’t, or rather we can’t, respond to Change “in
general”. We can, and do, respond to specific Changes. We evaluate each Change according to its individual degree of necessity and then, and only then,
we respond accordingly.
This observation doesn’t stop us from making generalized statements about Change, here’s one, “The only constant is Change”. While this is cutely true (if I’d meant ‘acutely’ I’d have typed it) and ancient in origin, a more useful and more recent observation is that “People don’t resist Change, they resist being changed.”
If presented with the statement uttered by a CA, “I’m here to Change how you do things.” no rational person
gleefully responds “Okay! Do what you have to do!” Instead we immediately try to get specific and respond (retaliate?) with a simple question,
“Why should we change?” This in turn, is immediately tagged as resistance, and even as a mild form of insubordination.
If the statement, “People resist Change” is true, then it is true in the same sense that Newton’s 1st law of Motion, The Law of Inertia is true.
Newton's First Law of Motion:
The Law of Inertia.
An object at rest tends to stay at rest,
and an object in motion tends to stay in motion
with the same speed and in the same direction
unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
Like a stone unconsciously (literally) following Newton’s Law, we continue doing what we’re doing, until we’re presented with a reason to do something else.
When we ask “Why should we Change”, we’re not trying to annoy or frustrate anyone, we’re merely following a fundamental law of the universe. We’re just seeking the reason necessary to do something
other than what we’re already doing.
The CA’s handicap is not only that they’re here to Change us, for reasons as yet
unexplained, but they’re here to Change us regardless of how we feel about it. Remember, the task of the CA is to “Make this Happen” if they don’t, they fail.
So, the CA must Change us, otherwise they fail. This flies in the face of how we decide whether or not a Change is necessary. Even worse, it ignores our earlier observation, “People don’t resist Change, they resist being changed.”
Allow me to introduce you to Bill, he’s a Change Agent, he’s here to Change you.
When a Change Agent is appointed, the decision to Change is fait accompli. Nothing anyone has to say, has any bearing on the matter.
There’s an alternative approach to this problem, even if there’s no generally accepted term for the role. Perhaps the term, “Change Coordinator” would work better? It suggests that at worst, the person is assigned the task of coordinating the efforts, decisions and the Changes of others, rather than inflicting them with a predetermined Change?
Our desire for Change arises either from the need to respond to a threat, “We
must do something about this!”, where “this” is a visible problem, or a perception that there is a better way of doing things, “We
could do this in order to achieve a specific additional benefit!”.
The term “Change Agent” has accumulated far too much negative baggage, and isn’t conducive to the notion that real Change is not mandated, but instead grows out of a common understanding that it is necessary, for specific reasons, to respond to a growing threat, or to seize upon a potential future opportunity.
© 2006 Peter de Jager – Peter is interested in all things related to Management, but especially Change Management.
Contact him at
Pdejager@technobility.com
For
reprint permissions click here.
I'd appreciate reading your comments
regarding this article... please take the time to respond.
Resources: