Metaphors of Change: How they shape what you Think & Do as a Leader

Currently, I′m teaching a course on change management at ISM, as part of an overarching module on (management) consulting. Typically, I write a mail to my students after each lecture, sometimes to send them additional reading material, sometimes to reflect on something I′ve said while teaching – and sometimes because I feel that something important has been left unsaid. What you′ll find below is the enhanced version of one of those mails – a reflection on the importance of the assumptions a “change manager” (for lack of a better word) brings to a specific project.

++++++++++

I think it′s crucially important to be aware of the metaphors you are using when trying to change an organization (or just trying lead people in general) – because those metaphors will, oftentimes unconsciously, shape the assumptions you and your team will hold with regard to that change. These assumptions, in turn, will most likely shape how you approach the task(s), what kind of outcomes you′re expecting, what kind of tools you prefer to use – and so on. To give you a couple of examples:

• If you assume an organization is like a large machine, this comes with certain implications. If you assume it is more like a living organism, this comes with other implications. A machine, when dysfunctional, can be fixed. An organism must (be) heal(ed). Accordingly, this difference might shape how you approach the “look and feel” of a change process.
• If you assume that your change process is like a journey, (to some extent) this invokes a beginning and a clear destination. The goal is getting there. If you assume that a change process is more like a road trip, this invokes the idea that exploration along the way is more important than reaching a predefined destination. This might significantly alter the pace or means of travel.
• If you assume that someone clearly is in charge, this might lead you assume that others are not in charge. This, in turn, might affect the amount of what commonly is referred to as buy-in.
• If you assume that change can be managed, this implies there are entities that manage whereas other entities are being managed. This might affect the amount of what commonly is referred to as resistance.
• If you assume that you need to create the impression of a burning platform in order to convey a sense of urgency, you might underestimate peoples′ willingness to proactively embrace change.
• If you assume that you′re leading the change this might invoke the idea that you are causing the change – whereas another mode of thinking, e.g., facilitation, might bring about the notion of merely enabling that movement.
• Ad infinitum...

Please note: These distinctions are not about being right or wrong per se. Rather, these are choices we make, sometimes consciously, more often: unconsciously. If you think about making a conscious decision you might want to remember this African proverb:

If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.

++++++++++

I′d like to thank Prof. Robert Quinn and Prof. Kim Cameron (both at Ross School of Business, Michigan) for planting some of these ideas in my head a few years ago...