Being for One Thing Is Fine Unless You’re Also Against Everything Else
(11) Comments“The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine on it, the more it will contract.” ~Oliver Wendell Holmes
I started writing this blog only five months ago. After 27 postings, I hope my readers have an idea of what to expect. Basically, the blog is geared for experienced change agents who don’t think they have all the answers. It’s for seasoned practitioners who have similar feelings about their profession:
- They are highly skilled but are more uncomfortable with how little they know than they are impressed by their accomplishments.
- They are more attracted to their remaining questions than their unquestioned answers.
- They create value for those they serve, but know deep down there is much more to learn—about transformational change and about providing greater benefits to their clients—and they are committed to exploring these gaps as humble students.
- They have much to say, but are eager to be part of, listen to, and be influenced by, a community whose collective wisdom is powerful.
With this as the intended readership profile, I’ve brought forward challenges that are familiar to me, which I think other practitioners can relate to as well. The readership has grown steadily and you’ve told me to keep it up. That has been heartwarming; I really appreciate it.
But There’s Something More
We’ve reached a point in the blog’s development where I’d like to say a bit more about my agenda in writing it. I have another layer of purpose, and, once I tell you about it, we’ll be able to draw additional implications from future postings.
Maybe the best way to introduce this new perspective to the blog is to take a cue from members of Alcoholics Anonymous, and the way they introduce themselves at their meetings. Along with their name, they declare a reminder to themselves and others of what they are confronting in their lives.
So, my version of the AA introduction is…Hi. My name is Daryl Conner and I’m a methodology bigot.
Methodology bigots aren’t just enthusiastic about or devoted to a particular approach to change implementation[1]—we are all but intolerant of frameworks, nomenclature, and styles of approach other than our own. Of course, we don’t often blatantly express this kind of prejudice within the professional ranks. In fact, most practitioners would consider it politically incorrect to say anything patently derogatory toward techniques and procedures outside their own repertoire. It’s okay to publicly “black list” one or two approaches—or even a couple of well-known authors—but any wholesale brush-off of all that’s available in the field outside your own approach would be thought of as unacceptably intolerant.
For this reason, we methodology bigots are usually quite skilled at camouflaging our aversion to anything but our own way of practicing change facilitation. In reality, however, we are actually quite closed-minded about the value of perspectives that run counter to our own. We give lip service to other approaches, saying they “have their place,” but what we really mean is that we think “their place” is nowhere near where we practice our craft.
For those who think I’m overstating the case or being unnecessarily harsh, I beg to differ, so please read on as I state my case. Yes, I could have used a less provocative term than bigot. Some readers might prefer I say that these practitioners simply demonstrate a strong preference for a specific change framework, or that they are just overly opinionated about their method, or that they are merely devotees to a specific approach to change. Catering to comfort, however, is not on the menu for this blog.
I want to cut to the chase here because circumventing the real issue with more pleasant, non-confrontive language won’t serve us. Methodology bigotry is a reality in the change facilitation community and it’s time to face it head on.
I am not implying that every professional change agent works from such a narrow view—far from it. Many in our field hold well-deserved preferences without being exclusionists. They may be adamant about the positive impact of their chosen approach or express strong commitment to the views of certain influential thought leaders, but they don’t display the inflexibility of the bigot. Plenty of practitioners have aligned themselves to, and are highly skilled in, a particular approach, yet they remain open to other influences. They are able to embrace both ends of the continuum—fully dedicated to one methodology, yet open to alternative ways of thinking and operating.
Strongly held views alone do not constitute bigotry. This term is reserved for those of us in the change facilitation profession who, beneath our politically correct façade, operate within an isolated, self-reinforcing ideology, missing much of the value we could gain from other thought leaders and methodology camps.
Mythology bigots inhibit their own development, and their arrogance hinders the advancement of our entire craft. Unless we expose ourselves to and truly respect the value that lies within the multitude of change orientations that exist, our field is doomed to live out its existence as a fractionated, war-lord-dominated battle of wills, where egos are more important than serving the organizations and transformations we claim to support.
It’s time we take a different course.
Next: The Signature Pattern of Methodology Bigots
[1] Throughout this series, when I refer to “a particular change methodology” or “a specific approach to change,” I mean either a single framework that change agents adhere to or to the several frameworks they often rely on to formulate an integrated way of executing change. I’m speaking to the practitioner’s preferred way of addressing change, whether that is a solitary methodology or a unique combination he or she has forged.
ChangeThinking.net
©2010 Conner Partners, Inc.
www.connerpartners.com
Daryl,
This looks to be a most interesting line of thought you’re developing. I can’t speak with your authority about the field of change management (though I do know a bit about trust), and it may be that bigotry is more rampant in change management than in other fields. But even if so, I expect it’s true in degree only. I think this is a topic that all professionals can relate to. Though I’ll just speak for myself; I know i resemble your remark!
I look forward to your exposition and the dialogue it encourages.
Daryl,
I appreciate the courage it took to write this. I feel very strongly about what you are saying, and it is easy for us to allow belief to erase thinking. We are dedicated to creating new futures for our clients, and that is a discipline of open thinking and creating an organization that doesn’t have to recommend what they know, but what they see is right. I commend you for this!
Daryl, You may recall me from the MAOL course a few years back. Mel Toomey informed me of this conversation you have started and it struck me that you have identified something that has made me feel uncomfortable for several years. Many of my friends are consultants and many of them have proprietary models or processes. Some of them seem to get tunnel vision out of some sort of attachment to their creation.
The idea of methodology bigotry is new to me but feels spot on. And, while we’re at it, how about “ideological bigotry”? Oh, oh … off to write my own article om this now…thanks for the inspiration!
Daryl,
You put forward and interesting perspective and likely have the data to back-up your claim.
Your comments provoked me to think about how people learn and subsequently try to inform, teach or educated others
around a “change methodology”. Is it bigotry or is it complacency or laziness that holds people to use a single methodology?
Are they resisting one methodology or are they simply translating the “new” (read different) methodology to the familiar one and appearing to be a bigot?
I am excited to learn more as you explore this topic.
Regards
Dave, MAOL, III
Daryl,
I’m not sure how I ended up on your email list, but I appreciate the subject and your honesty.
I often introduce myself as a “serial” consultant (in jest) and I too have have demonstrated judgment regarding methodology. However, my judgment arrives when there is no methodology, which is its own form of bigotry.
What I love about consulting is that I continue to learn from my clients and they continue to demonstrate that there are 1000 ways to be successful and 1000 roads to Rome. Ultimately, I do a better job as an adviser when I internalize that there are many paths to success for an effort and find a balance between advising, listening, and letting go of my methodology.
Daryl,
I can’t wait to read the rest of this series! I laughed out loud at your statement ‘catering to comfort is not on this menu..’! I wonder how often it is on the menu of what you offer, if ever! Which makes your insights all the more valuable – since the openness that characterizes them is so rare. Thank you and I look forward to the next installment!
Warmest regards,
Peggy Murphy
Daryl,
Your typo (I assume it is or maybe it’s blog short-hand), in your next to last paragraph, caught my attention – - “Mythology bigots inhibit their own development…” So, with the power of Wikipedia, I searched on mythology and change, and a Roman god named Janus popped up. Quoting Wikipedia… “In Roman mythology, Janus (or Ianus) was the god of gates, doors, doorways, beginnings and endings. His most prominent remnant in modern culture is his namesake, the month of January, which begins the new year. He is most often depicted as having two faces or heads, facing in opposite directions.” Kinda cool!
And so… back to your blog topic… Janus could be a symbol for my own change methodology bigotry – - I have, for example, for far too many years, leaned on William Bridges’ Transitions model (Endings, Neutral Zone, New Beginnings – sounds like Janus) as a theory to help clients through the personal and emotional challenges of change. And, for years, I’ve been making “excuses” for how the model falls short in situations of constant and rapid change. I’ve played with variations of the model, iterations of the model, etc., with some success/usefulness.
But… it’s clear to me that there is a challenge, in our field, to continue to upgrade our theories and methologies, or invent new ones, for the current world experiences – - constant change, repeated change, global change, change in virtual organizations, the dynamics and psychology of change for the millennial generation who have only known a world of rapid change, etc. The methodology bigots in our community (including me) could truly “inhibit development” of our field. In my experience, it takes several forms – - sticking to a “well-worn” method even if it doesn’t fit, and, even more harmful, repackaging an old method with current buzz-words to make it look new.
The good news is… the first step is acknowledging it (hmmm is that the ending?!?!?!) 
Thanks to all who have commented.
There are some great perspectives coming forward that, hopefully, will encourage others to share their views.
Daryl
Good for you Daryl. I think you are spot on. But as you describe, I think it is entirely normal for people who have spent an entire career or lifetime or both developing a methodology or set or processes to “start really believing their own stuff” or become ultra protective of and evangelical about their intellectual property. I have seen this over an over again, and I suffer from it as well.
One area that I think is worth pursuing further is the benefit linear versus non-linear approaches to work. I believe we were all pretty much brought up on machine theory…optimize all the parts, assemble them properly, lubricate them well, control them from the center and you will optimize the performance, a la Six-sigma. And all of this is great (can you feel my bias slipping into gear) in a simple world or for simple things, but do not work at all well in a complex world. I have come to think of organizations of people as complex adaptive systems, far different from a car or a manufacturing machine. Yet, in my experience we have continued often desperately to try and impose linear process or methodology on these complex systems and expect them to work and are appalled when they do not. As Einsten said, “Insanity is continuing to do things exactly the same way, and expecting a different result”, or something close to that. I am for great use of non-linear, bottom up, self organizing approaches to work in human systems. My name is Grey Warner, and I am a methodology bigot…and proud of it.
Greetings Daryl,
Good topic – my apologies for being so late the party.
I’ve been ‘in’ CM for about 35 years, and have gravitated to three ‘core’ frameworks for my understanding, and presentations/consulting of, in and around CM. Kubler-Ross’s Grief Cycle, Virginia Satir’s Change Process Model and Everett Rogers’ work in the ‘Diffusion of Innovation’.
Onto each of these frameworks, I’ve glued, attached and appended various observations, exceptions and additions of my own as I’ve seen fit. What I present is by no means the pure forms of these models.
One of the scariest things for me is the attendee, who when asked ‘why are you attending today’s CM session’, replies… “I’m here today to bring myself up today on the latest thinking on CM”
I immediately offer their money back because I don’t do that. In the time I’m usually allowed? The three frameworks mentioned above provide more than enough to keep us very busy. I don’t pretend to cover everything and admit wholeheartedly that there’s a filtering process going on when I speak/consult on CM. I’ll focus on what I think works best. By ‘ignoring’ the other bodies of work – I am slighting them – my excuse is that it’s done in the interest of time. The truth? Yes… I’m a little bit of a bigot when it comes to the lenses I use to view the Change landscape.
To my credit? I have realized something about the CM field, (with one exception… more on that later… maybe), all of the many different models are ‘reporting’ on the same patterns and phenomenon. We’re all talking about how people (not organizations – one of personal biases has just peeped in to say ‘Hi!’) respond, react, reply to Change. Where the Models differ is where the different authors have chosen to focus their attention.
Here’s my perspective on how this plays out in the frameworks I work with.
Satir is driven by the need to protect the Status Quo
Kubler-Ross by the shock of grief which presents first as Denial
And Rogers by the pickup rate and dispersal process of an accepted/embrace change
These aren’t at odds with each other – they’re just different slices of the same beast – I’ve found this to be true with most, not all, CM models.
I do ignore some models (those that are trademarked/copyrighted I avoid like the plague) – so in that sense I’m a card carrying bigot.
Should I bring more concepts into the fold of what I do? Absolutely… but at some point – I might have reached it – we’re attracted to, and content with a core set of ideas. A ’spanning set’ of CM concepts that addresses a large percentage of the CM situations we encounter.
The challenge for all of us is? What happens when our CURRENT spanning set of tools does NOT address some new situation? Do we ignore it? Or does it prompt us to search out some new ideas? It’s easier to ignore it… it’s more fun to saddle up and go on the hunt.
Looking forward to how this conversation unfolds.
Congrats on choosing a good topic.
Peter de Jager
Brampton, Ont
pdejager@technobility.com
Daryl,
I appreciate your perspective and absolutely concur with your assessment that fragmented approaches have stalled the evolution and refinement of the field. I have spent the last several years diving into transformation, change, change management/leadership, and a master’s degree in conflict engagement and assessment. Through this trek, I’ve realized a disappointing lack of continuity in the material and a lack of a notable unified advancement of the “change conversation.”
As with many disciplines, over time and through organized and willing participation, individuals and groups share best practices that have proven themselves over the test of time and situations. Predictability in one change framework may be elusive, but I suspect if we all began to let go of our primal securities and collaborate about what works, we can begin rapidly progressing the change conversation and the discipline itself. And then we can make the difference we are out to create.
posted by Darshana Patel on April 27, 2010 at 4:09 pm