"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
But what happens when the change agent has to effectively administer the new solution? If the change has been designed to help existing models transition into the new practice, it will most likely be successful. However, if the change is mandated, and not arrived at through empathic and inclusive collaboration, it is likely to fail.
The documentary film, "Who Killed the Electric Car" is a rich example of a mandated paradigm shift that was not invested in working collaboratively to transition their primary stakeholder – General Motors - into a new model/era. There was a lot of talk about why GM was bad and wrong, and very little talk about what and how they would gain from the electric car program. They are a business, and the bottom line is their primary concern.
I believe that the combative approach to administering change on the part of the change agents had a lot to do with the failure of the project. Sure, they were "doing the right thing for the greater public good", but in a way that alienated their most important ally, GM. But somehow, they assumed they could bully GM into accepting their demands, without their sincere cooperation. Everyone lost in the end, and the finger pointing continues to this day.
GM has paid for its spitefulness, and the electric car pioneers have paid for their naiveté. We as consumers have also paid the price.
As change agents, do we always have to identify and vanquish an enemy in order to make progress? How can we approach our current challenges in the spirit of cooperation? Barack Obama seems to have some ideas about how these cooperative strategies work - I'm really looking forward to seeing how it all unfolds.
0 comments:
Post a Comment