Is it Resistance or Incubation? The Exponential Shape of Change

I was talking with a good friend today about her struggle to initiate positive changes in the organization she works in. She described the tendency of most people there to avoid talking about certain crucial subjects. This is not unusual--most organizations have certain "unspeakable" topics. There is a tacit agreement to not talk about the elephant in the room, or the emperor's transparent new clothes.

I was reminded of a novelty toy years ago that looked like a black metal box with a little red lever along the top front edge. If one pushed the lever, the box would start whirring and the lid on top would slowly open. A little metallic hand would come out of the box, moving toward the lever. It would push the lever back to "off" and then dart back into the box, the lid snapping shut behind it. I realized this is a metaphor for many organizations, whose unacknowledged culture cancels out any initiatives for improvement, because people think they're not supposed to go that way, or talk about it.

This pattern of automatic self-stopping can discourage managers and consultants from implementing improvements. Their constructive initiatives are non-verbally spurned, and they come to the conclusion that there is great "resistance to change." I think this is a misunderstanding of the way human systems change. While there are some events that result in apparently quick and transformative change, such as a change in the top leadership, or major disruptive changes in technology, most real change has the shape of an exponential curve, or a hockey stick. Nothing seems to be happening for a long while, then suddenly it becomes apparent that there has been slow quiet development over a period of time, and big changes begin to emerge spontaneously. The caterpillar in the cocoon has been invisibly transforming, and it emerges as a butterfly.

For change agents, patience and perseverance is a wise strategy. Years ago, I was invited to Herb Shepard's house, which he called "Fort Courage," to celebrate his 60th birthday, along with many fellow alumni of the Case-Western Reserve U. doctoral program in OD. I was excited to see fellow alumni from many cohorts talking with great animation in small clusters, sitting at couches or standing around, holding drinks. My thought was, what an amazing repository of knowledge and experience about OD practice was assembled in the room! I imagined that soon, Herb would convene us, and the socializing would give way to serious exploration and discussion among the group as a whole. But after some time, that shift did not happen, and people just continued to chat, mill around in small clusters, and drink. Nobody was convening the conversation.

Finally, losing patience, I walked over to Herb and asked him, "Don't you think it would be good for us all to sit down and talk as a whole group about what we're doing and learning?" His response was a classic Herb Shepard intervention: He looked me in the eye and said, "So what are you going to do about it?"

I gulped quietly as I got the message. So I started to circulate from cluster to cluster, non-verbally and then verbally joining each conversation, and then asking, "Don't you think it would be good for us all to talk together about what we're doing and what we're learning?" They would usually agree, and then go on with what they were talking about with their two or three friends. I would shrug and go on to another group, etc. My initiative was not catching on. I kept going, though, until I got to the last group, standing in the kitchen, talking with great animation and energy about whatever. I began to do my routine of non-verbally joining the group and conversation, waiting for the first opening to speak my proposal. But this was a group of very experienced, first-cohort alumni. They were implicitly aware I was up to something and did not want to be interrupted. They were non-verbally keeping me out of the group.

I was feeling greatly discouraged. My change initiative had failed. At that moment, someone came in from the living room and said loudly, "Hey! We're all sitting down together to talk about what we're doing and learning! Come into the living room!" And we did.

What stories can you tell here about your own change initiatives?

(If you received this post via email, go to

http://human-systems.blogspot.com/ and click on Comments at the bottom of this item.)

Scanning the Future, While Acting in the Present

Being an OD Practitioner in the 21st century is becoming more challenging, and perhaps more important.

Our global and local environments are less predictable and stable. Carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere continue to increase. Petroleum reserves may be peaking Forests are decreasing. World energy usage is increasing. Global population is increasing, though not evenly--European countries are facing a shortfall in their labor force. iPads may become the new novel or newspaper to read on the train. The proportion of college-educated and -employed women world-wide is increasing. Jobs and knowledge are being exported across national borders. Undocumented workers are being imported. Research and technology is improving health care but making it more expensive. Project teams in multi-national corporations work across time-zones, and seldom meet face-to-face. Managers make decisions, but outcomes are hard to assess because the variables are so complex; they get promoted for appearing to be decisive, rather than for making the right decisions. Short-term solutions turn out to lead to unanticipated disasters. Are you confused and overwhelmed? Guess how your clients feel?

We are increasingly aware that our world is changing, and that we need to be intentional about evolving our ways of practicing Organization Development in the years ahead. As the global and organizational environments in which we work continue to change, OD practitioners are called on to be clear about the core values and principles that guide us, while adapting our intervention strategies and developing the appropriate competencies to carry them out effectively.

The growing need is for ways to guide change in the present, while keeping the future in mind. Consider what you are noticing about how our world is changing. What trends are you aware of in your own work experience, reading, media reports, travels? We can put our individual perspectives together like a mosaic, and become more aware of the changing contextual patterns in which we are doing our work. Post your own observations and questions by clicking on Comments.

As Shel Davis, one of my mentors, used to say, "Correct me if I'm right." ; )

And you may be interested in the results of a Delphi study about OD and the future that is speeding toward us.

Creating A New Context--The Way of OD

How we behave moment by moment is determined in large part by the context in which we perceive events around us. In a comedy club I expect to be entertained and am prepared to laugh. At a drugstore counter as I pick up a medication, I remember being treated officiously last time, and I protect myself from being treated as the clerk's problem again.

At the comedy club almost anything the entertainer says is funny, or at least interesting, as long as it is consistent with the behavior of a comedian. Some jokes are funnier than others, but I do expect jokes, not tragic news. At the drug counter the new kid serving as clerk mumbles his questions and gets my name wrong. Then I notice his plastic bracelet and ask what cause he's supporting. It's some kind of tragic disease that needs more research funding; my behavior softens and I help him understand my name and find my order. We part wishing each other a great day. The context shifted.

In a staff meeting I expect to talk about work issues and to state relevant views about decisions we need to make. In one particular group I expect some off-topic comments from certain staff members, and weak, unfocused leadership from the manager running the meeting. I'm resigned to frustration for an hour and a half, but look for opportunities to interject sanity--or at least a smart aleck remark to break the tension.

All interaction, in this sense, has both content and context. We focus on content but are implicitly aware of context for guiding our understanding and response choices. These are the figure-ground combinations described so well by Gestalt psychology: we assign meaning to experiences in terms of the interplay between the figure and the ground--in my terms, between content and context. Changing either one changes the meaning of the whole.

We tend in most circumstances to accept context as it is--even to be unconscious of it, and engage in content-focused exchanges. The meeting is the way it is; my focus is on what people talk about, and my choices are about what I say. One way of understanding Organization Development practice is to view our work as paying attention to the context in which people say and do things; to notice the way that context supports or limits their awareness and choice; and to intervene at the level of context as much as content.

In the role of consultant or facilitator in a staff meeting I can say something about the topic we're discussing--content--and I can also say or do something about how we're talking and interacting--context (or as some refer to this, process).

In a rambling conversation at a meeting, I might say, "Ah... I just want to check; what agenda topic are we on?" and the context pops out of tacit background and into explicit focus in everyone's awareness. Group members come out of trance. It's like watching an overly dramatic play and turning to the next person saying, "what do you think this stage setting is doing to the action of the characters?"

This is always experienced as a break in the flow in some way. Pulses quicken; color returns to faces. Tension shifts, up or down--either experiencing defensiveness and conflict, or relief from frustration and powerlessness. It's a high-risk, high-power move. In that moment our professional behavior is counter-cultural--outside the norm. Done well, it releases group members' creative energy for constructive change. Done slightly wrong--in timing, tone, or wording, it can evoke aggressive coordinated group reaction in protection of the group and its formal leader from this hostile outsider.

We do this all the time in our work, in small or large interventions. Whether we are doing a role-play in a training session, or recording the agenda on a flip-chart or guiding the redesign of work structures, we're changing the context.

And we--anyone--can do this every day in any interaction. We are always each other's context as we talk, work, play, or are silent together. We are actors on the stage and also stage designers for ourselves and each other. As co-authors of our lives we can re-write the plot flow as we go along, creating the quality of our dramas, our tragedies, and our comedies.

The OD practitioner's job is to take these creative risks appropriately and effectively, moment by moment, in each intervention, training session and client engagement. It can't be done well as a technique or a manipulation, because it won't work, or it will backfire. When we consistently do it well, authentically, we truly earn our high fee, and we get the satisfaction of catalyzing constructive change and making a difference.

Do you have a recent experience with changing the context in an interaction? I hope you'll post a comment about it.

And enter your email on the right, to receive notification of new entries as they are posted.