What is it about the notion of change that brings about one of two reactions: resist it or embrace it? When it comes down to it, our human nature divides us into two groups: the ones that hate change, the same group that likes the comfort of a routine and knowing what to expect on a daily basis; and those who are seeking a way to bring a fresh, new perspective to their daily lives. As we discuss certain companies, industries, and people who fall into the latter of the two groups, I can't help but wonder what it is that separates the embracers from the resisters.
For those of us in Leadership this semester, is change something that is born in us? Like trait leadership, are there those select people who simply possess the innate characteristic that allows them to instill ideas of change in themselves and others? Or is change something that can be learned and possessed by all people in different levels and abilities? From my perspective, change is something I have always viewed personally. I don't necessarily think of a singular company, (think corporations like Apple or Google) as the reason change occurs. I think of the people who make up that company, who personally think of new ideas, products, or processes that spurs change. Perhaps inventor is a more appropriate word choice. But whatever you call it, I think it takes a certain type of person, including their characteristics, and their own perceptions of the world around them, to spur what Gladwell refers to as the epidemic of change.
In my own family, I immediately think of my grandfather when innovation comes into conversation. Mr. Wallace Almquist III isa civil engineer who was the President of Colombia Oil and Gas for the majority of his professional career. An engineer, is someone I think of who naturally enjoys taking things apart, figuring out new and improved ways of doing things, mixing up and changing the system in order to make a process better or perhaps more productive right? Ironically, this is the same man that refuses, and I mean will argue with anyone, about computers and how much they have improved our lives today. He wants nothing to do with them. In fact, he insists that his 100 year old typewriter can suffice to get anything he needs done and do it just fine. So riddle me this: how is it that change ever occurs when there are millions of people just like my Grandfather who pose such a strong resistance to the epidemic? Who are these leaders, these innovators, the "connectors, mavens, and salesmen" as Gladwell refers to them, that are able to diffuse new ideas that really do change our world. How do they get someone like my stubborn Grandfather to change? Is there a tipping point in all of us that ultimately enables even the strongest strand of resisters to embrace change? When does the "stickiness" factor finally take over and allow the idea or innovation to spread?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Very nicely written piece Lindsay. It made me think about that age old nature vs. nurture argument that subtly seepes its way into a lot of our classes (e.g. leadership (as you so aptly pointed out)). Are people naturally born with a gene for change or are they a product of their environment? Was your grandfather a biproduct of a generation generally hesitant toward technology, or is he wired for comfort? The debate has always seemed to end the same whenever it comes up; the nature vs. nurture debate is flawed because it can't possibly be an either/or question. Even if we are wired a certain way we always have the choice for change; even when that change is incredibly difficult. But our probablity of choosing change is very small because of our inherently adverse disposition to change. So what does this mean? The great challenge is convincing others of the necessity of change, which makes persuasion the great catalyst and our greatest tool in the toolbox.
ReplyDeleteP.S I think you have found your "crux"...and its name is "spur". Damn these sticky words...