Change is hard and other misperceptions

I've been attending the Innovation Immersion conference over the last few days.  It turns out that innovators struggle with change just as others in our businesses.  I think I've heard the phrase "change is hard" about 50 times over the last two days.  I think this is becoming received wisdom.

Think about it - we all change every day.  We change our hairstyles, change our diets, change our relationships.  In fact, if you don't change, you'll become very stagnant and dull.  So, it's not necessarily an issue that people WON'T change, or are even uncomfortable with change.  Most people change some factor or attribute of their lives on very frequent basis.  If people are able to change independently, then why is "change" difficult at a corporate level?

I think this is driven by choice.  I can choose to change my diet or route to work.  I can even choose to change my career.  However, I want some control when change is forced upon me, and I suspect that many other people feel the same way.  The reason people resist change in organizations is not because they can't change, and really not because they fear change, but because the individuals don't control what's happening.

There are other factors that inhibit change, including things like corporate inertia and the loss of political or organizational power, but I think the most significant barrier to change is control.  If this supposition is true, then the way to create powerful change in an organization is to set the goals and provide the tools and the means to allow those impacted by the change to take control and guide the change necessary. 

This is not one of those "let's get everyone on board" discussions, because all that does is create skeptics.  No, I think the requirement is to define the change necessary and get the people who are impacted and responsible for the change to make it happen, but give them some control over how it happens.  With control will come a lot more enthusiasm and comfort, which will speed the implementation.

Comments

[bob handwerk]

The more "control" people have over change within an organization --the more future change is exponentially inhibited. Perhaps input, and dual ownership of ideas, concepts etc which are being modified will contribute to the continuing (and you are so right) necessary change.

[Max Leibman]

There is a great deal of truth to this.

I've witnessed this pattern more than once in my volunteer work--whenever a change would get "handed down" from above, I'd fight it like hell (and have dozens of logical reasons why I should). However, as I've climbed the ladder in the organization, the first thing I do every time I get ahold of a new opportunity or responsibility is...start changing things.

I've also found the value in putting other in control of the change--when I implemented a staff curfew at a youth leadership camp last summer, we heard a mass of grumbling from the experienced (but still young) counselors in the days and weeks leading up to it. However, at training we let the staff themselves discuss and vote on what, specifically, they wanted the curfew to be; lo and behold, they chose a very similar time to what we in charge had wanted, and nobody complained or tried to sneak around it all week!