The End of History Illusion: Do We Change or Not?

By Steve Longan

The year was 1992. The Berlin Wall had come down. The Soviet Union had been dissolved. The Cold War was over. Communism’s obituary was all but written. Sure, there was still China and a few other small countries holding out, but none of them could seriously take up the mantle as the last in line of challengers to what Francis Fukuyama viewed as the final form of government and linked socio-economic systems for the globe. Socialism, fascism, totalitarianism, and communism had all risen up over time, and all had been faced and then surpassed by liberal democracy and free-market capitalism. It was, as far as he could see, the “End of History.”

To Fukuyama, this was the end-state for human government, economics and societies. And as he surveyed the last two hundred years of human history, and the gradual spread and strengthening of liberal democracy and free-market capitalism, he was confident that these systems were no longer merely ascendant and dominant on the global stage but were to become the interconnected ideology for understanding primary human governance.

This would lead to wholesale reduction in warfare, an increase in production and prosperity for all nations, and an increase in constructive globalism. The world, and the nations that make up the world are matured and maturing. And, as mature participants in the global sphere, they will see clearly their roles and responsibilities to global order, government society and trade.

At least, that was the idea.

The last three decades have shown a sharp contrast between the end-state Fukuyama imagined and the societies we all inhabit now. And as naive as we might view his appraisal in retrospect, there is no denying the inherent and seductive allure of his offer: we have arrived. We are done.

It’s so compelling an idea, in fact, that individuals and organizations fall into that same pattern of thinking all the time. Jordi Quoidbach, Dan Gilbert, Timothy Wilson have explored and documented this phenomenon with individuals for over a decade. Here’s the short version of how they discovered the “end of history” dynamic functioning at the individual level:

Take a group of average adults that represent the general population and survey them. Ask them how much they have changed over the past 10 years, using a point scale to try to capture the magnitude of change. Include the different arenas where change might occur: relationships, values, work preferences, art and aesthetic preferences, etc.

In general, people will tell you that they have changed a great deal! The amount of change reported tends to decrease as humans age, but there is still significant change reported.

Next, take a different group of average adults, and ask the exact same questions. Except, in this round, ask them to gauge how much they will change in the next 10 years. And, with very few exceptions, people will tell you they expect to change very little. This low estimate of prospective future change persists even if you survey the same group of adults who just reported having changed a great deal!

This dynamic is so consistent that, following from Fukuyama’s “end of history,” it has become known as “The End of History Illusion.”

There are many implications springing from “The End of History Illusion,” but the one that strikes me as I work with leaders is that we are people in a constant state of change, who believe that we are done changing the entire time. This leads to change processes being largely unconscious and unintentional, with the resultant changes being only tenuously connected (if at all) to our values and vision. Because we do not see ourselves changing, we don’t bring awareness or intention to the change enterprise.

This is a problem. It’s definitely a problem for our own professional development. It’s something that good coaching tries to get in front of and challenge and reframe in each coaching session as well as the engagement overall.

But it’s also a problem for workforce development and employee engagement. It’s a problem for talent retention and team building and organizational culture and a host of dynamics that leaders try to get their eyes on and arms around.

Because the end of history isn’t just a lens we apply to ourselves. It’s a lens that can impact how leaders see —and then lead — their organizations for better and, often, for worse.

For example, if a leader follows the end of history hypothesis with their organization and believes that people and groups are essentially done changing, what is the solution for development? Unsurprisingly, it requires lots of hiring and firing and all of the costs that come with that strategy. And these costs are ongoing for the life of the organization!

If leaders look through the end of history lens with their people, what happens to employee and stakeholder engagement? Unsurprisingly, it goes down, and with it, a whole host of negative outcomes, but the consequences, such as loss of engagement, are easily foreseeable just based on the incompatibility of the end of history illusion with the basic components of a growth mindset.

So, what’s a leader to do about this?

There are three strategies that can be taken immediately:

1. Recognize where in your organization you see (and maybe have even assumed) the end of history myth at work. You can recognize it from all the tell-tale signs from above: stagnation, lack of effectiveness over time, loss of engagement, lack of retention, etc.

2. Take a look at your organization’s values, both the official and the unofficial (but still vital) ones. Remember, with very few exceptions, people are changing, it’s just that they’re not always aware of it. It’s not intentional and therefore not connected to values or vision. So insert those vital values you’ve identified into the day-to-day for your people. Bring them into meetings, into internal assets, into emails, into retention and bonus processes. This helps people take whatever change processes are already happening and anchor them to something more likely to be generative, effective and meaningful.

3. Leverage your unique role to model the thinking and the behaviors you would like the people in your organization to cultivate. You shape the environment. This can’t be overstated. As a leader, your words, your actions and engagement are the example that sets the climate for your organization. The impact of this may not be immediate, but immediate and continued action in this area will create a momentum that counters the end of history illusion.

Taking those first three steps is a great way to begin, and in a follow-up article (coming in November), I’ll highlight a particularly powerful tool, backed by some compelling data, for increasing engagement and countering the end of history illusion at both the individual and organizational levels. But in the meantime, let me know if you have experienced this for yourself or in your organization, and what you may have found effective for countering it. Leave a comment here and start the conversation.

Until then, here’s to seeing the illusion for what it is, and to all the good that comes once we are able to see it.

?When you're ready to think more about mindset, leadership, coaching, and other ways to grow yourself and your team, schedule a call with Jason here. It's on us.