A long while ago, a great warrior faced a situation which made it necessary for him to make a decision which insured his success on the battlefield. He was about to send his armies against a powerful foe, whose men outnumbered his own. He loaded his soldiers into boats, sailed to the enemy’s country, unloaded soldiers and equipment, then gave the order to burn the ships that had carried them. Addressing his men before the first battle, he said, “You see the boats going up in smoke. That means that we cannot leave these shores alive unless we win! We now have no choice—we win, or we perish! They won.
— Napoleon Hill, in Think and Grow Rich
This story is likely familiar; it is often attributed, incorrectly, to Cortez, and it is usually used to compellingly explore the topic of motivation.
You will probably not be surprised to learn that I’m going to go somewhere else with it. I want to talk about change, and what my profession curiously calls change management.
There are two basic theories of change. One of them is flawed.
One holds that change begins with our knowledge and attitudes. Leaders who hold this theory of change implement initiatives that are training intensive, zeroing in on changing our attitudes. The more we know, the more we understand, the more we will adjust our attitudes. Attitudinal change, then, leads us to change our behavior, and as we all change, the organization changes.
Behind door number two we have the theory that says just the opposite — we change our attitudes in response to a change in our behaviors; and we change our behaviors in response to changes in our environment.
I would like to believe that I change my behavior based on different perspectives that I’ve received through learning new and different things. I would like to believe that I don’t need to be “forced” into changing.
What do you think?
I’ll bet you, like me, would like to think the first theory of change is right, but, in fact, it is exactly backward.
Initiatives based on the first theory of change will take forever to produce meaningful change, if at all. Odds are, it won’t produce a tipping point for the organization before it crosses the frustration threshold of its leaders.
Burning the boats is way more effective.
We change our behaviors because we have to; and we have to because something around us, outside of us, has changed.
I liked hamburgers as a kid, but good gosh no cheese; I wouldn’t eat cheeseburgers, period. Until one day, when I didn’t have an option. I love cheeseburgers now …
What do you think was more responsible for a reduction in smoking: the public service announcements and surgeon general’s warning or the banning of smoking in restaurants, bars, and other public places?
The surprising truth is that we don’t change when we have control and can make choices; we change when we don’t have control and we have limited choices.
Effective leaders don’t try and change their people. They know that they simply do not control their people… And the more they try and directly change our attitudes, the more we push back, dig in, and resist.
Instead, they burn the boats! They redesign the structure; rewrite organizational policies; reengineer processes, integrate technology and tools, update the incentives, clarify the measurements…
Instead of changing us, they change what carries us, what affects us; they change what we depend on; they change what is all around us.
They burn the boats.
Adapted from Managing Change: Cases and Concepts. Todd Jick.
Tom Greco said:
I remember a (wise?) man telling me – when I was a small child – that someone who is “born a dog will die a dog.” So much for theory #1. I say burn the boats!
John M. Greco said:
I fear you say that with far too much enthusiasm! Ha!
Ron said:
Doesn’t the cliche “necessity is the mother of invention” support door #2? By the way, I prefer hamburgers to cheeseburgers also. Same DNA I guess.
John M. Greco said:
Yes, Ron, along the same lines… And, yes, same DNA for sure, but I like cheeseburgers now! I think the same DNA might be around having an apprehension for new and different experiences …?
Pingback: Want to change your non-profit organization? Then change your people! « Donor Dreams Blog
donordreams said:
I love this post, John. However, burning the boats doesn’t always guarantee success. My thoughts turn to Sears when they sold their credit card division in order to fight the retail war. Oooops!! Can’t you hear them asking, “Where did those boats go?” LOL
John M. Greco said:
Guarantee, you say? Ha! As for Sears; good example! If burning the boats was all it took, we’d see a lot more boats burning … there’s a few other criticals involved!
donordreams said:
A few other criticals? LOL.
Going back to the story you shared by Napoleon HIll, I imagine him ording his boats burned, turning around to address his soldiers, and realizing that he brought the wrong army . . . I am visualizing a legion of fighters who look like Geek Squad employees. I see the General taking a deep breath as he realizes that he should’ve brought his gladiators rather than his IT minions.
A few other criticals? Yes, I would say you are being diplomatic. 😉
John M. Greco said:
Oh, alright already; guilty! Nothing slips by you… 🙂
Mike said:
I couldn’t agree more, John. I say….jump into the deep end of the pool; it’s a terrific motivation to learn how to swim 🙂
Dan Carney said:
John, Interesting analogy. Does this also go back to fear as a motivator?? During WWII the Russians machine gunned their own troops if they tried to turn back. I believe organizations have to take away the option to not change. That may mean training and investment in new methods or processes but the old ways cannot remain.
A lesson early in my work life were what appeared to be two very good managers doing the same job on different shifts. When new technology was introduced one refused to accept the change. After 15 years of a great work record he was terminated. That stuck with me throughout my career. Be the early adopter, embrace change. It is OK to question the change and perhaps mold it to a better use or purpose but to try and ignore it is folly.
Dan
John M. Greco said:
I’m with you totally on the “take away the option not to change” notion.
But it can’t always be fear. I think fear is only motivating in the short term; it is debilitating in the longer term.. Fear is intervening directly on the people; I’m suggesting that changing the environment is a better strategy, as people can continue to exercise their freedom to choose. If they choose wrong, they put themselves at risk … and if they choose to ignore, you bet — folly is right!
Pingback: Our 2012 Top Ten « johnponders
Pingback: To which theory of change does your non-profit subscribe? | Donor Dreams Blog