D x V x FS > R Huh?

A challenge associated with any change theory of action is we know change is not linear, concrete, or sequential in practice.  As we have learned through experience, change theory is just that, theory. 

Change generally costs more than we want to pay!

Change takes longer than we anticipated!

Change takes us down roads, paths, and trails we never thought we’d go!

Face it - Change is messy!

As someone whom for most of my career has been about creating, provoking, cajoling, facilitating, leading, or preaching “change”, I, like most people, don’t’ like “changing”.  

There is a difference of course between “change” and “changing”.

One is a “what” or an expectation while the other is a process or “how”.

The desired or expected result of change is “good”, “improvement” or “better”.  Whereas “changing” is where the carnage pile up.  Making change a four-letter word, right?

More often or not lacking a well thought through “process” plan or map is missing.  I have learned that the absence of an assessment of capacity, competence, confidence, constraints, and courage to navigate the change process successfully is what makes “changing” such a mess.

In presenting the inequality D x V x FS > R, the variables of Dissatisfaction (D), Vision (V), and Reluctance or Resistance (R) with the intent of emphasizing that there is a range within each variable that influences the utility and import of that variable on the process have previously been unpacked.

Dissatisfaction must be informed by data that is perceived to be within the control of those who for the most part need to change their thinking to change a program, practice, process or etc.  Vision must resonate with the core values or guiding principles of each individual as well as the organization.  It must be clear, understandable, and compelling.

Balancing the range of dissatisfaction and vision is potentially a slippery slope.  This is where First Steps (FS) becomes absolutely critical because it is the “how” of “changing”.   If, for example, an individual, group, or organization does not have the capacity, confidence, or competence to initiate, engage, or participate in the proposed change no vision or level of dissatisfaction will suffice to ensure the change is successful.

The analysis or assessment of capacity, confidence and competence of individuals is informed by understanding of constraints – individually and organizationally.   Constraints are neither good nor bad – they just are!  Out of balance, however, constraints are a liability.

What does this mean?

I’ve learned that constraints are at the heart of taking first steps toward “change”.  Too often, leaders skip over constraints and miss the power and purpose of assessing self and others to ascertain if, and to what extent constraints pose imminent danger to “changing”.  Failure to account for constraints is fatal and will fuel the very beliefs and behaviors that shift reluctance to both overt and covert resistance.

We have embarked on a transformative change initiative of technology integration to conversion of teaching and learning.  Without going into details about the specific plan, our first step was to identify any and all known constraints that could or would prevent us from moving forward. 

Chief among these were the capacity, confidence and competence of our instructional staff with instructional design and use of digital tools and devices.  Making assumptions about capacities can be as catastrophic as failing to identify and address constraints. 

This is where courage in and of leadership comes into play.  Leaders must leverage time not be held hostage by it to develop not only understanding but also a plan to address constraints – individually and organizationally.  Hence, my summation that First Steps is the most critical of the variables in our inequality.

The landscape is becoming replete with examples of failed change initiatives resultant from the failure to build or expand capacity, competence, and confidence to ensure constraints don’t impede or prevent change as being achievable. 

Let me conclude by returning to where I started, resistance being misinterpreted.  Yes, there will always be an element resisting any change.  I’ve learned that many that resist have had a negative experience with change a constraint to be sure.  This is probably why I like this inequality.  It makes sense.  It allows me and those I have worked with to build enough capacity to reduce not eliminate resistance. Applying this theory of action is a tool for leaders to use to increase the desired and expected results of change.

Best of success on your next change initiative -