Change Hit The Fan

By K G Birmingham
Change Part One
I'm thinking about change these days. Partly because I just watched change
"hit the fan." It is always ugly when things go sideways. People get hurt. And
it seems like change is one of the surest ways to hurt people. I have to say
somewhat selfishly (my fallen nature) that I am glad that it was not my fan
that just got hit. But, it still hurts to watch friends struggle.
I am reading Seth Godin's book, Tribes and while the book is about
leadership and human tribalism, its undercurrent is that our world is
constantly changing and it needs people to lead that change. He says,
"People want connection and growth and something new. They want
change." (p.2) I don't disagree with Godin its just if people want change so
badly, why do we have dozens of books and experts and seminars on
managing change and dealing with the aftermath of change. The paradox is
that while we seem to resist change, we have created a society that is
caught in a vortex of constant and rapid change.
We all want change and we all do change and we all benefit from change,
while at the same time we all resist change. I tried to brainstorm why and the
following is a list of words that came to my mind about change:
Pro Change - better, lust, necessity, excitement, pride, different, image,
boredom, improvement
Pro Status Quo - connection, control, memory, continuity, comfort, stability,
constant, known
There is nothing inherently wrong, immoral or unethical with wanting or not
wanting change. Change and Status Quo are morally neutral. Sometimes
change is forced upon us. Sometimes change just feels good. Sometimes it

nice to go back to the old neighbourhood . Sometimes its nice to sing an old
song.
And maybe its not about change at all. After all Solomon wrote, "What has
been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing
new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9 - NIV)

Change Part Two

I saw an interview recently with Jack Welch (former CEO of GE). He said
something along the lines that change can never be too fast. When he said
that, my immediate thought was that he had never tried to lead a church where change at any pace seems to be too fast.
I have often heard it said that, "The change at the church was implemented
too fast," and that is why there is upset and sometimes outright revolt. But, I
am beginning to think that no matter what the pace of the change is, it is
going to bring resistance.
Within any group of people (such as a church congregation) there will be
those who want change and those who do not want change. And, no matter
what you do - change or not change - you are going to run into challenges. If
you change, the resisters will either: a) stay and fight it, b) stay and sulk, or
c) leave. If you don't change the changers will either: a) stay and fight it, b)
stay and sulk, or c) leave. So, to word it more crudely, "Your damned if you
do and your damned if you don't!"
When we change things up and it doesn't go as well as we hoped, I wonder if
the question we ask ourselves is not about the pace of the change, but
whether the change was necessary in the first place. If the change was
necessary, then maybe Jack was right. It is a little like tearing off a bandaid.
Do you rip it off quickly and get it over with, or pull slowly and drag out the
pain.

Change Part Three

Having been dealing with what seems like constant change over the past 30
years, I have come to a two part conclusion. The first part is that there is
more than one right way to implement and manage change and secondly
that there is exponentially more than one wrong way to implement and
manage change.
Now you may think that I have grown cynical over the years, but when you
think of the detail that is involved in change it really is pretty easy to go off
the rails.
There is the timing of the change. Is it the right time? Are the all right
conditions (people, resources, desire) in place?
There is the pace of change, or maybe you could call it the rhythm. I once
read that during a period of change it is good to pause, to change up the
pace to give people an opportunity to breathe.
There is the speed of change. Are you going too fast, or too slow? Are people
able to maintain their equilibrium?
Then there is patience. Many change agents get impatient and push too
hard, in their desire to get to the other side of the change.
And it is always good to question the appropriateness of the change. Even if
the time is ripe for change, is this the change that is appropriate?
I could go on and on, but you get the point. And all of this really points to the
key issue of buy-in. If people don't buy-in, they will buy-out, either by
leaving, revolting or sulking. None of those are healthy reactions and it won't

matter how appropriate the change was, if people aren't on board, the
change will fail.
If we fail in the timing, pace, appropriateness, etc. we will fail to get buy-in. If
we fail to get buy-in the change will fail or at the very least become
extremely messy.

Change Part Four

This post is dangerous, because I struggle to have an answer to this
question, "Why Change?"
Now, I know that at this moment you thinking of a thousand reasons for
change and many of them are great. For example, something is no longer
effective, such as the need for the creation of new antibiotics. Or, something
better has come along, such as led screens for computers. Or, circumstances
have forced a change, such as the over harvesting of Brazilian rosewood
forcing guitar builders to look for alternatives. Or, something is unacceptable
like the death every 20 seconds of a child due to contaminated water.
Now, it would seem reasonable that people wouldn't resist or oppose these
kind of changes, but that is not the case. There is no change no matter how
valid or noble that someone doesn't resist.
At the moment of this writing, the leaders of Israel and Palestine are meeting
in Washington to discuss peace and there is huge opposition to these talks
by a wide range of interests. You would think something as precious as peace
would be fully supported, but it is not. You can argue that the opposition to
these peace talks comes, because there are great complications
accompanying the talks - the complications of land, people, religion, rights,
power, pride, etc., and you would be right. And even though most of those
who oppose the talks would state that they too desire peace, they are not

willing to compromise, or set aside, or negotiate their "complications" in

order to achieve peace. The status quo is preferred over the risk of peace.
So, back to my question, "Why Change?" After all the status quo is
comfortable, known, beneficial to some, easier, seemingly less risky and
besides, who can guarantee that the change will work? No matter what the
change, someone will be upset, so why create a problem? Wouldn't it be
better just to manage the present circumstance?

Change Part Five

So, "Why change?"
Well, some change is easy, or at least easier. If the change involves
something really good - a change for the better - then it is not as difficult. I
have used electronic PDAs for well over a decade. My first one was a little
Sharp unit that had a single line display. Then I moved up to an Apple
Newton (Bet you never heard of it!), then a couple of Palms and now an iPod
Touch. I went from the basic storage of names and appointments to a full
colour, surf the web, really cool world and except for the resistance that
comes with forking over the money I can say, "Change is good!" In fact, the
Newton was purchased for me by my work, so there was no resistance at all,
at least not on my part
Other types of change is made easier, or at least with less resistance,
because there is absolutely no choice in the matter. You may not like the
change, but there is no going back. I mentioned in a previous post that guitar
builders have had to look for alternatives to Brazilian rosewood and
Honduran mahogany. Guitar builders love to work with those woods, but they
have been over harvested and now it is almost impossible to get them. So,
the builders have had to look at alternative woods, they have had no choice.
Which on a side note I think has lead to some really good sounding
alternatives, that they may never have discovered if not forced upon them.

Still other types of change is fairly easy to take, because the impact is very
slight, or the results are neutral. There are hundreds of little changes that
take place all of the time, that are either tweaks (a new web interface),
improvements (new and improved Tide), repackaging (just about every
product on a grocery shelf), anticipated (tax hike) or temporarily
inconvenient (road repair). They are not that big and we soon get over them.
Or in the case of tax hikes, we have grown so cynical that we meekly
surrender to the inevitable.
Finally, some changes are easy to take, because they are self initiated. We
like the changes that we are in control of. If I decide to purchase a new car
before my car dies, or a look for a new job before I am fired, or buy a brand
new laptop, or get a new hair style, etc., etc. I am in control and I see the
change as my choice and for my benefit.
These are examples of change that is fairly easy to deal with; however, not
all change is as easy and that is what I am struggling to deal with.

Change Part Six

Okay, so some change is relatively easy. If for no other reason than, it can't
be avoided. But, what about the tough stuff. The change that is hard. The
change that is divisive. The change that is painful. The change that is
resisted. What makes it so difficult? Why do we do it? Can it be easier?
I think the hardest change is the change that doesn't have an apparent
reason. The change that doesn't have buy-in, because those most affected
by the change don't see or understand the reason for the change. This is
change that comes when a significant number of the people impacted by the
change are not interested in changing. They are satisfied with the status quo,
or at the least they prefer what they have now, to what they perceive the
change will bring.

There are lots of books written about how to set up change. How to prepare
influencers and leaders. How to get buy-in. How to create dissatisfaction with
the present and a desire for something new. And if you work the system well
enough, you can move a lot of people in the direction you want them to go.
But, there will be a cost. That is why there are just as many books written on
how to deal with the inevitable conflict that comes with the change, as there
are books on initiating change.
So, "Why change?" Especially, if it is going to create conflict and send people
sideways. And even more so, if the change doesn't appear to be crucial. Is
change inevitable? Or, are there some things that don't have to change, or at
least don't have to change as frequently? Or, do we have to live with the
pain of change?
Maybe, the issue is not the change, but our human weakness. After all,
change is about people, not things. Things don't care. Systems don't have
feelings. Objects are inanimate. Are we managing the wrong side of the
equation? Maybe the problem with change is not the change, but ourselves?
And if so, how do we address it?

Change Part Seven

Before I continue on to talk about the human side of the change equation, I
thought it might be useful (at least for myself) to review, or at least highlight
what I have written so far.
"People want connection and growth and something new. They want
change." - Seth Godin, Tribes (p.2)
But, maybe its not about change at all. After all Solomon wrote, "What has
been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing
new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9 - NIV)

No matter what you do - change or not change - you are going to run into
challenges. If you change, the resisters will either: a) stay and fight it, b) stay
and sulk, or c) leave. If you don't change the changers will either: a) stay and
fight it, b) stay and sulk, or c) leave.
I have come to a two part conclusion. The first part is that there is more than
one right way to implement and manage change and secondly that there is
exponentially more than one wrong way to implement and manage change.
If people don't buy-in, they will buy-out, either by leaving, revolting or
sulking. None of those are healthy reactions and it won't matter how
appropriate the change was, if people aren't on board, the change will fail.
There is no change no matter how valid or noble that someone doesn't resist.
The status quo is often preferred over the risk of change.
So, "Why change?"
Well, some change is easy, or at least easier. If the change involves
something really good - a change for the better - then it is not as difficult.
Other types of change is made easier, or at least with less resistance,
because there is absolutely no choice in the matter.
Still other types of change are fairly easy to take, because the impact is very
slight, or the results are neutral.
Finally, some changes are easy to take, because they are self initiated. We
like the changes that we are in control of.
I think the hardest change is the change that doesn't have an apparent
reason. The change that doesn't have buy-in, because those most affected
by the change don't see or understand the reason for the change.

Maybe, the issue is not the change, but our human weakness. After all,
change is about people, not things. Things don't care. Systems don't have
feelings. Objects are inanimate. Are we managing the wrong side of the
equation? Maybe the problem with change is not the change, but ourselves?
And if so, how do we address it?
Okay, now on to the human side . . . next post.

Change Part Eight

I am dodging "the human side" of change, because quite frankly I am not
sure how to tackle it. Whatever little spark I had when I first questioned
whether the true issue was change or our human weakness, has left me.
I guess what I am thinking is that change is inevitable. Last night I sat down
with my family and watched old videos from when my children were very
young, meanwhile I am sitting with my oldest who will soon have two
children of her own. Circumstances change over time and there is nothing we
can do to stop it.
I used to travel overseas quite a bit and when someone was traveling with
me I would always tell them to savour every moment, because they were
going to wake up one morning and realize that the trip was a long time ago.
We need to live in the moment, because time marches on and soon we are
on to the next moment.
Maybe, the difficulty with change is with us. We can't stop change, so how
are we going to handle it. And I mean all of it - the change we initiate, the
change that we absolutely don't want, the change that comes from tragedy,
the change that come with much pleasure - all of it. Maybe we are so busy
trying to manage the change we miss out on what change - both good and
bad - can bring. Just maybe there is good to be found in something that looks
like a loss.

I think God has a viewpoint on this, "And we know that God causes
everything to work together for the good of those who love God and are
called according to his purpose for them." Romans 8:28 (NLT)
I'm not saying that we roll over and sing "Que Sera Sera . . ." and allow just
anything to happen. There is some true evil at work in this world that does
need to be resisted. However, I can't help but wonder if we create most of
the difficulties that surround change by our knee jerk reactions and we miss
out on the opportunities that come with the change.
If change is inevitable, then why are we trying so hard to push against it?
Maybe instead of managing change, we need to manage ourselves. We need
to manage our attitude, our perspective, our information, our priorities, our
relationships, etc.
We are always either agents of change or subjects of change. When we are
change agents, we need to consider the impact that the change will incur
and deal with the people, not the systems, in helping them through the
change. When we are the subjects of change, then we need to check our own
attitudes and to assist the change agents in understanding the impact of the
change.
I suppose the other thing that is inevitable is the pain. But, pain
management is another topic.