“It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.”
Nikolai Machiavelli (1513). The Prince
Nikolai Machiavelli’s 500 year old thoughts on change are as true today as they were in Renaissance Italy.
I’m going to write about change and what makes it so hard. I’ll tell you about an idea that was born over 70 years ago that is helpful in understanding change and figuring out the best way to make change happen. As it’s topical, let’s use hybrid working as an example, but the idea applies equally to any type of change, be it personal (going on a diet) or organisational (culture change).
Peter’s story, ‘why should I come back to the office?’
“Peter, you have to come into the office at least twice a week.”
“Why should I? What’s the point?”
Everybody likes Peter. He is one of those contrarian, eccentric, likeable people. He works hard, cares about what he does, looks after his team. His crankiness is endearing rather than annoying. He’s been working from home since the pandemic and people miss him. A few days ago, the CEO issued an edict that everybody has to spend a minimum of two days in the office. Some people grumbled, but everyone returned – everyone that is, except Peter. Now, it’s your job to persuade Peter that he has to show his face, and the task is proving difficult.
“Peter, it’s not me. If it was down to me you could work from home, but it’s company policy now – the big boss says you have to be in for at least two days a week.”
“I’m not bloody five years old. I’m not going to do something just because a ‘grown-up,’ says I should. Give me a good reason, I might think about it.”
“Okay, the team wants to see you face-to-face.”
“I see their ugly mugs all the time on Zoom and there are no complaints. It would be nice to meet up - but it’s too much hassle”
You go on to provide some other reasons why he needs to come back; all of which he firmly rejects as being, “nonsense.” Rolling his eyes, Peter eventually says, “Look, my work is pretty good and I can do it better working from home than the office. I can manage my team perfectly well over Zoom and they are happy enough, aren’t they?”
Well, yes, Peter’s work is excellent and his team is functioning well.
“I love working here. I love the work, the challenge and most of all the people; but, if you aren’t happy with the way I work, maybe I should look around for something else?”
What do you do?
What do you do?
The key to understanding Peter and change in general is the word ambivalence.
It's not that people don't want to change, it's that usually they are in two minds. A part of them wants to change and another part doesn't. Part of them is drawn to change. There is a natural human instinct to grow and develop; but, another part is scared, often terrified, of changing. This is because change also means loss. It means leaving behind something that feels safe and familiar. The past and present feel settled, but the future, the change, feels unsettled and uncertain; and there is threat in uncertainty. This is what Nikolai Machiavelli wrote about 500 years ago in the quote above.
If you have to talk to somebody about change, this is a constructive way of framing the conversation. Rather than trying to persuade them to change, say, "maybe there is part of you that would like to change and part that doesn't?" This opens up a dialogue rather than an argument.
Kurt Lewin and change
Back in 1948, Kurt Lewin, a social psychologist, came up with an idea that hit the nail on the head and is useful in understanding change and figuring out the best thing to do to make change happen. He called it Force Field Analysis.
Kurt Lewin
You’ve bought a new desk!
Imagine for a moment you are out shopping and you buy a new desk for your study, which happens to be in your attic. A few days later, it arrives but the delivery people leave it in your hallway saying that they are not paid to carry it up the stairs. What do you do?
The desk is too heavy for you to move. You could ask a few strong mates to help you move it. Maybe you could go to the gym and lift weights for six months so you become strong enough to move it yourself. Or, perhaps if you took out the drawers and unscrewed and took off the desktop you might be able to move the desk a bit at a time?
This is an analogy for Kurt Lewin’s model of change.
You want to change your study with a nice new desk. Your desire to get the desk to the study is what Lewin calls a driving force.
Unfortunately, other forces are conspiring to prevent your desired change and thwart your driving force. Namely, the force of gravity, the weight of the desk and your own puny physique. These are what Lewin termed restraining forces.
If you want to change something there are only two ways: you either have to strengthen the driving forces or weaken the restraining forces. Using our desk analogy you would strengthen the driving forces by recruiting your mates to move the desk or going to the gym to get stronger so you can move the desk by yourself. Or you can start to weaken the restraining forces by removing the drawers and desk top to make it lighter, and moving the desk one piece at a time.
In other words, you effect change by either strengthening driving forces or weakening restraining forces, preferably by mixture of both.
Lewin knew that the forces driving are in a constant struggle with forces that want to restrain and prevent change. Social and psychic cohesion is maintained when there is an equilibrium between these opposing forces.
Kurt Lewin developed these ideas in the aftermath of World War II - a time of social change. In 1948, he wrote
‘A culture is not a painted picture; it is a living process, composed of countless social interactions. Like a river whose form and velocity are determined by the balance of those forces that tend to make the water flow faster, and the friction that tends to make the water flow more slowly, the cultural pattern of a people at a given time is maintained by a balance of counteracting forces’ (Lewin, 1948).
Organisations are currently caught up in the fast flowing river to hybrid working. To negotiate the river you will need to figure out the various forces at play. It’s these conflicting forces generated by the change to hybrid working that are the, beneath the surface, driving forces of Peter’s reluctance to return to the office. It’s not just about Peter’s stubbornness it’s also the wider social and economic forces finding expression in his behaviour.
What can you do?
To get Peter back to the office the first step is to understand the conflicting forces. Don’t just bombard him with the reasons why he should return (driving forces) but ask him about why he is reluctant to return (restraining forces). In Lewin’s words, you should do a force field analysis.
When you’ve done that, start to figure out how you can weaken the restraining forces and strengthen the driving forces. For example, you might say to Peter, “I can see why you don’t want to come in and do the sort of work you can do just as well from home - makes sense. We want to use the two days in the office for more creative and strategic problem solving with you and your team - which is a lot more effective face to face than on-line. We also want to build in some social and team building time.” You get the idea?
If you are feeling stuck about change, here are some questions to reflect on:
What are the forces driving change? Write down at least three.
What are the forces restraining change? Write down at least three.
Write down at least three things you could do to strengthen the driving forces.
Write down at least three things you could do to weaken the restraining forces
When you are facing change, whether that’s business or personal, give some thought to this. Do your own force field analysis. Often, just the process of doing this sorts out your own conflicting thoughts and feelings and makes the solution a bit clearer.
Key points:
Change is dynamic not linear.
The prospect of change generates feelings of ambivalence.
Change results from the struggle of driving forces and restraining forces.
To make change happen, you have to understand what the forces are and strengthen the driving forces and weaken the restraining forces.
References and further reading
Lewin, K. (1997). Resolving Social Conflicts / Field Theory in Social Science. American Psychological Association. P.46 (Original work published 1948)