I am sure you have heard it said that the only constant in this world is change itself. And it is for this reason that I keep coming back to the topic of change, examining it from different perspectives. With change going on around us at an alarming pace, our greatest wish might be to have the capacity to truly and comfortably keep up! If only managers and employees could embrace change and alter their thinking “on demand”.
In my book, “Stepping Stones: Values Based Stories and Strategies for the 21st Century”, I acknowledged that change itself is a worthy value and allocated one whole chapter to the topic. Change is simple to embrace when you are leading a process; as the conductor, you can detach from the anxiety of change because it is others who must comply with the flick of your baton. However, when you are at the epicentre of a tumultuous and turbulent operation, you must share in the discomfort. Yes, ain’t change wonderful!
In a previous post, I also introduced brief therapy. Most therapeutic tools address change directly using a rational approach, while confronting the conscious mind; brief therapy, in taking on the most difficult disorders enters through the back door, tapping into the sub-conscious mind and using the element of surprise and what many clients would perceive as being irrational, maybe even nonsensical assignments. While many therapies fail, brief therapy is claiming sensational enduring breakthroughs for clients who had given up any hope of emotional health.
Many direct techniques seem promising at first glance; however the relief of symptoms is not lasting and after yielding partial and temporary results from yet another magic bullet, clients simply give up and learn to accept their albatross.
This leads me into my most recent discovery on the process of change. Not a therapy, the work of David Logan, a participant in the annual TED seminars (filmed March, 2009; posted Sept.2009), offers a model on how change occurs and thus some insights on how change agents can address the subject. In this presentation, he is talking about tribal leadership — in his language, the people we associate with everyday form into tribes of people ranging in size from 20 -150 members.
David Logan infers that tribal association influences how we understand and then participate in this world. The weaker the tribal association, the weaker the capacity of the individual to participate in significant change. He breaks down this human understanding into five categories or stages.
The first and least developed stage is “life sucks” and about 2% of the world’s population find themselves mired in the misery of this tribe. They associate with individuals who have a commom understanding of the world and have severed from functional tribes to practice their own dysfunctional behaviour. Their group behaviour is justified by the fact that the complete tribe shares the “life sucks” perspective. They are not positioned to participate in any meaningful change proecss.
The second stage is “my life sucks”. Sadly, 25% of people are stuck here, lacking belief in themselves and their capacity. Although this is still a negative and a dysfunctional behaviour it represents an evolution in that the individual has escaped from the constraints of negative group behaviour. The individual no longer acknowledges the need for membership in a reinforcing dysfunctional group. Still their limiting vision of their personal reality affects the contribution they are capable of making in this state.
The third level, representing 48% of the population, is “I’m great”. The positive side of this tribe is that the individual sees their own value. On their own, they do their job effectively. The challenge is that they do not value others. The absolute limitation of this behaviour is that they cannot particpate effectively on teams of positve likemanided people.
The fourth level is “We’re great”, and it is great that almost 22% of folks have aspired to this level. These are people who work in teams to achieve common work goals; with excellent leadership they have accepted a work vision and are working cohesively. They have aspired to group benefit.
The final and optimal stage is “Life is great” and only two percent can be found at this level. These are people who have a world embracing view, who are working for a fundamental global change.
In David Logan’s interpretation, true leaders only exist at level five. Since his interest is in a world embracing change, leaders must be at this level; of course, it could be argued that leaders at level four indirectly support movement to level five, by drawing membership in level four. Still at stage four group size is limited. There is still a comparative view as opposed to an all inclusive stance found at stage five.
Since, as Mr. Logan points out, individuals only have the capacity to move up one level at a time, absolute change is a long term challenge. Following are four difficulties that leaders, alias change agents must address:
- What kind of manager are you?: Where do you fit on the continuum? If you are reading this blog, there is a good chance you have at least reached stage three. If, however, you intend on leading your employees to the promised land, you will need to embrace “life is great”. It is interesting that this stage is strongly consistent with the writings of the Baha’i faith.
- Considering your workplace, at which stage do the members of your group reside?: In the absence of leadership, your employees could all be members of different tribes — that is, at different stages. It is interesting how the five stages come together and give the illusion of a cohesive community. A conscientious manager will invest in truly knowing both thee limitation and the potential of the employee.
- Develop strategies to gradually move all employees up the ladder: Knowing that your employees most likely will be sitting on different rungs of the ladder, you will be called upon to develop customized individual programs. It will not be easy.
- Patience will be your greatest friend: As you try to inspire your crew to step up a rung, they will occasionally succeed and they will just as often fail.
This model highlights the importance of one of my persistent messages – that the true leader manages people; when epople are effectively managed, they will effectively deliver products and services. What is your view of this model? Please let me know what you think.