The Truth About Change

My last two posts about truth have generated some of the best comments this blog has ever seen. I quoted Joe Gerstandt's comment in the second post, and that one generated an equally awesome comment from Lindy Dreyer. Her question was bout leading change when you're in the middle:

You can only create change if you're in the position to do so. Yes, that can come from the middle, but only if you have the relationships and the trust of the people you work with--above and below.... I guess the challenge for folks in that middle position is knowing what you're capable of, choosing your battles, and fighting them valiantly.... When change comes from the middle, and the driver leaves, does the org default back to square one? How do you keep that from happening?

Short answer: you don't. If "you" are still in that organization (and the driver left), then you are probably the one who wants to default back to square one, although I doubt you would frame it that way. Change, for "you," is to valiantly fight to return to the wisdom upon which your organization was based.

 Maybe we need to debunk some myths about "change." I don't think change comes from the top, middle, or bottom. Change simply is. Time advances and the universe flexes and morphs, and your organization is constantly adapting. Frequently it adapts by maintaining consistency or the status quo, but that is still an adaptation. The turbulent universe is exerting force on it, nudging it slightly out of orbit, and it fights to stay in it. Or it attempts to go with the new force and break out of orbit, but it turns out to be a rather massive planet, so moving it out isn't so easy. Moving out of orbit is hard, but change is constant.

Tops, middles, and bottoms are all playing different roles at different times in each of those scenarios (pushing to stay in orbit and pushing to break out). There is not one single path to maintaining a beautiful orbit or moving out of a destructive one. 

But what speaking the truth does for all of us is shine lights on these orbits. We see more clearly what's happening, even if we can't control the change from our one position in the system. My favorite truth quote is from Gloria Steinem: 

The truth shall set you free, but first it will piss you off.

If we all (tops, bottoms, and middles) raised the bar on truth telling, then the orbits we are in--and their beauty and destructiveness--would be much more apparent. Some drivers of change would move on, and some status quo clingers would hold on even tighter. There would be some shake up. Some people would get pissed off. But in the end, I'd bet we would start to see better results, because more of the right people would connect in the same orbits. We'd have better alignment, and that would give us the collective power to move massive planets into and out of orbit more quickly. 

Perhaps I don't have practical advice for that person in the middle who wants to change the system. Maybe it's not your job to change the system. Maybe it's your job to connect the top and bottom together more directly (back to Lindy's point about trust and relationships with workers on both sides). Maybe Joe's advice is practical: step up and speak the truth, because when you do, you'll help everyone get clearer about WHY they are trying to move either into or out of an orbit.

Comments

[Ellen]

This cluster of posts around "change" and "truth," with mentions of "leadership" and "hierarchy," are fascinating. Maybe because I read them together rather than as they were posted, this emerged for me:

Change and leadership can be generated at any level of the hierarchy, but unless there's leadership buy-in for that change, or support for that leadership at the top, it's not likely to survive past the person generating it.

Have seen too many leaders unwilling to trust newer staff members with innovative ideas over the longer-employed staffers who held quick to the status quo. In those cases, amazing possibilities died from lack of leadership interest or action.

No sadder death than that of a great idea born in an organization unwilling to change enough to take it on.