Acronym

I can't find the recent Harvard research piece I read, but its basic finding was that people experience a sense of loss during the change process twice as intensely as they experience the sense of what might be gained. I think this has implications for the "blow it up and start over" approach, one that certainly has merits as you outline.

At minimum, a board, staff team, or task force could do a blow it up exercise, starting from a blank page and seeing what they would create. To prevent that from being a potentially unremarkable variation on what currently is being done, the group would have to be tasked with creating a new initiative that meets pre-determined criteria that reflect very desirable changes and results. Let's say a committee wants to rethink the association's professional development offerings. It could be tasked with creating a platform in which every member has at least one association-sponsored professional development experience annually. Challenging criteria such as this will in turn challenge existing processes and programs. The key is keeping whatever is generated tied to these new metrics and to not let politics and pet perspectives pollute the discussions. Involving some "wild card" thinkers with very different experiences and perspectives and/or crowdsourcing some of the thinking might also help produce new insights and ideas.

Perhaps what gets imagined will be so compelling that you indeed blow up the past and simply embrace one of the new ideas created. More likely though is that people will find flaws along with benefits of any new approaches suggested. At that point you can cherry-pick the best of the different ideas generated and see how they could be incorporated as a new and improved iteration of what currently is being done, hopefully dropping some of the worst aspects of your current efforts.

And if deep down you really believe wholesale change is the only way to go, you might try to find ways to start a new program, division, etc. that could be created from scratch. Corporations more commonly adopt this approach as it leaves the new efforts relatively unfettered, lets them prove their worth in the marketplace, and eventually can be turned to as replacements for the dominant way of doing business if indeed they have turned out to be successful. It's an approach that helps overcome some of the sense of loss that our usual approaches to change engender.

I don't look at it as "blowing things up" but as replacing a system that no longer works in a way that provides the most advantages to the most people.

Any time you present change as destroying that which already exists, you have already failed because people feel threatened and will push back.

However, if you present change or an entirely new structure as the next step that builds on what went before -- even if it seems completely different -- people are more open to giving it a chance.

Look for evolution, not destruction.

Great thoughts, Jeffrey and Cecilia.

@Jeffrey: the study you refer to is interesting. I think that gives some psychological explanation to the level of negativity that arises around change efforts. Even if something doesn't work well, people seem more comfortable with it than the unknown option. I'm reminded of the old saying "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know."

Also, you make a great point about the need for strong, "challenging criteria" in any blank-slate exercise. Coincidentally, Dan Pallotta at Harvard Business made a similar point in a blog post yesterday about "What Nonprofits Can Learn from the Apollo Program." He argues that John F. Kennedy's specific challenge to reach the moon in 10 years created the exact type of atmosphere that made the necessary critical thinking possible. It's an interesting parallel, and worth a read. (Pallotta also wrote a guest column in the Sept. issue of Associations Now.)

@Cecilia: Such an important point about how "destroying that which already exists" dooms change to fail from the outset. It's tough, because most times the need for change arises from the obvious failings of that which already exists, and solutions are often presented as "we'll fix A, B, and C..."

And to both of you, I like your points about presenting change not as starting over but as a next step or an addition. Perhaps rather than "start over," we can think "start anew, over here."

Most associations will not blow themselves up. Even change-oriented leaders often find it hard to stray too far from the current situation or adopt actions they think may not currently be feasible.

An outside person can make recommendations without having the responsibility to implement them. That may sometimes be the "excuse" needed by current leaders to implement significant changes (without blowing themselves up).

Hi All, Good questions! I can't answer them specifically but will add another perspective. I can see how the "blow up" exercise could be fruitful; thanks for that! Also, as someone who is energized by challenge and change, I seek others who are similarly stimulated by the possibility of growth, learning, and evolution -- and share my enthusiasm and vision with them. As a team of change agents, we then expect resistance to change but also expect people to understand that organizations, like organisms, must change in order to survive and grow. The key, seems to me, is to involve as many people as possible in the process, and to frame the question appropriately. The question should not be, Change: Yes or No? but Which do you prefer: Change A, Change B, or something else? Of course the change agents then need to be willing to change their initial proposal and assumptions, too, to incorporate other good ideas.