This challenges the very foundation of most corporate change models I’ve seen. The idea that we rely too much on language based persuasion rather than environmental design or generational changes makes so much sense. Excellent read Baird.
I like this concept of creating necessary drama. It is a way to reimplement the forces of nature but in a controlled environment and semi-controlled outcomes. Great piece, Baird.
Thanks for those kind words, Sam. I can see how my Darwinian thinking piggybacks onto some of your writing about bringing a bit of the war zone/jungle into our comfortable modern lives to kickstart some good old reflexes and programs. There is some power in that paradigm for sure.
Super helpful change concepts, Baird. Like PDCA, a concise framing of the issue makes it appear manageable, as opposed to nebulous and sprawling. I'm now thinking about how I can apply each to myself - to trick myself into changing habits, etc. (and secondarily to some organizations I'm involved in).
Thanks Jesse! I hate nebulous and sprawling. Too much of that in grad school!
Cool to see you pivot this to a self-management perspective. I'm a big fan of restructuring the environment to support desired personal change. I wrote about that here if you're interested:
In my world of academia it was often important to the university to adapt to changing circumstances like increased or decreased student enrollment (and the impacts of said on revenues and budgets), the external demand for revised or new curricula, or the need to focus faculty and student research on areas of importance. For this latter, we pragmatically defined areas of importance as those that would attract government or industrial financial support (shifting the financial burden to an organization outside the university usually requires conducting research that the external sponsor wants).
To be honest, I struggled mightily with this need to help change the minds of faculty. In communicating to faculty, I was confronted by two difficult questions: What were the changes in the outside world that were driving the need for change. Defining what those were was very important because faculty are a skeptical bunch and are not easily led. The second related question was more difficult-how to convince faculty that it was in their best interests to shift their focus in teaching or research. This was difficult because given the tenure system at universities, faculty rarely feel any need to change - inertia is baked into the system.
In the end the approach that worked, to a modest extent , was identifying like- minded faculty, those that have the “change gene” strongly expressed, and incentivizing them with financial rewards and recognition within the university. When other faculty saw the benefits accruing to their colleagues who adopted change, some came on board, and perhaps a few even did so without cynicism.
Thanks for an excellent comment from a seasoned leader, Grant! Your "incentivizing them with financial rewards and recognition" touches on Rx #2 to change the work environment so it is conducive to positive change. And yes, the tenure system makes Rx #3 (select the right people) unavailable. So your focusing on the early adopters as influencers for the rest of the pack is wise.
Really comprehensive and impressive post Baird. Change is difficult at all levels but knowing where to focus and how to execute is crucial. You’ve provided a blueprint for leaders in any realm with this one. Thank you
Thanks for your kind words, Kyle. You get a prize for making it through this TL;DR essay. That's what all your years of grad school equipped you to do!
Haha. I only recently learned what TL/DR means. My thoughts, too long? Opportunity to read and gain insights where most others won’t. Differentiating opportunity assuming the content is valuable and from a credible source. You always check both boxes on that.
This challenges the very foundation of most corporate change models I’ve seen. The idea that we rely too much on language based persuasion rather than environmental design or generational changes makes so much sense. Excellent read Baird.
Have a good Wednesday!
Thanks for your kind words, Neela. Most appreciated!
I like this concept of creating necessary drama. It is a way to reimplement the forces of nature but in a controlled environment and semi-controlled outcomes. Great piece, Baird.
Thanks for those kind words, Sam. I can see how my Darwinian thinking piggybacks onto some of your writing about bringing a bit of the war zone/jungle into our comfortable modern lives to kickstart some good old reflexes and programs. There is some power in that paradigm for sure.
Super helpful change concepts, Baird. Like PDCA, a concise framing of the issue makes it appear manageable, as opposed to nebulous and sprawling. I'm now thinking about how I can apply each to myself - to trick myself into changing habits, etc. (and secondarily to some organizations I'm involved in).
Thanks Jesse! I hate nebulous and sprawling. Too much of that in grad school!
Cool to see you pivot this to a self-management perspective. I'm a big fan of restructuring the environment to support desired personal change. I wrote about that here if you're interested:
https://bairdbrightman.substack.com/p/will-power?utm_source=publication-search
In my world of academia it was often important to the university to adapt to changing circumstances like increased or decreased student enrollment (and the impacts of said on revenues and budgets), the external demand for revised or new curricula, or the need to focus faculty and student research on areas of importance. For this latter, we pragmatically defined areas of importance as those that would attract government or industrial financial support (shifting the financial burden to an organization outside the university usually requires conducting research that the external sponsor wants).
To be honest, I struggled mightily with this need to help change the minds of faculty. In communicating to faculty, I was confronted by two difficult questions: What were the changes in the outside world that were driving the need for change. Defining what those were was very important because faculty are a skeptical bunch and are not easily led. The second related question was more difficult-how to convince faculty that it was in their best interests to shift their focus in teaching or research. This was difficult because given the tenure system at universities, faculty rarely feel any need to change - inertia is baked into the system.
In the end the approach that worked, to a modest extent , was identifying like- minded faculty, those that have the “change gene” strongly expressed, and incentivizing them with financial rewards and recognition within the university. When other faculty saw the benefits accruing to their colleagues who adopted change, some came on board, and perhaps a few even did so without cynicism.
Thanks for an excellent comment from a seasoned leader, Grant! Your "incentivizing them with financial rewards and recognition" touches on Rx #2 to change the work environment so it is conducive to positive change. And yes, the tenure system makes Rx #3 (select the right people) unavailable. So your focusing on the early adopters as influencers for the rest of the pack is wise.
I often think of implementing change as attaching someone to a long rope. Tethered but unnoticed. Like an idea was of one's own.
That’s a nice subtle metaphor, Stacy.
Really comprehensive and impressive post Baird. Change is difficult at all levels but knowing where to focus and how to execute is crucial. You’ve provided a blueprint for leaders in any realm with this one. Thank you
Thanks for your kind words, Kyle. You get a prize for making it through this TL;DR essay. That's what all your years of grad school equipped you to do!
Haha. I only recently learned what TL/DR means. My thoughts, too long? Opportunity to read and gain insights where most others won’t. Differentiating opportunity assuming the content is valuable and from a credible source. You always check both boxes on that.