Eva Kaplan-Leiserson drew my attention to a Fast Company article called "Change or Die". The article itself is good for drawing attention to the nature of change.
Kotter has hit on a crucial insight. "Behavior change happens mostly by speaking to people's feelings," he says. "This is true even in organizations that are very focused on analysis and quantitative measurement, even among people who think of themselves as smart in an MBA sense. In highly successful change efforts, people find ways to help others see the problems or solutions in ways that influence emotions, not just thought."
Unfortunately, that kind of emotional persuasion isn't taught in business schools, and it doesn't come naturally to the technocrats who run things -- the engineers, scientists, lawyers, doctors, accountants, and managers who pride themselves on disciplined, analytical thinking. There's compelling science behind the psychology of change -- it draws on discoveries from emerging fields such as cognitive science, linguistics, and neuroscience -- but its insights and techniques often seem paradoxical or irrational.
I think the above is characteristic of many manager's challenges and difficulties when it comes to change - how can the science and psychology be applied - we've already had some thoughts on this subject here. Additionally, while I fully endorse such sentiments, in the same breath, I also believe that there is a better perspective on this classic issues which was recently outlined by Dave Flemming.
Yesterday's mantra of "Change or die" will evolve into a new mantra for the future: "Live to change." Organizations must stop characterizing change as a mere event to be endured and learn to tap the possibilities that emerge from change as teacher and transformer. Herein lies the future — allowing change to shape the organization so that the organization can shape change.
