Change paradox: Difference between revisions

}}{{smallcaps|If we take it}} that, like any other intellectual proposition,<ref>I speak of none other than the [[Duhem-Quine thesis]], that it is impossible to test a scientific hypothesis in isolation, because any test presupposes one or more background assumptions and auxiliary hypotheses.</ref> a management initiative must be driven by some ''theory'' or other — that is, it is designed to prove out a hypothesis that ''already exists in the mind of an executive'' — and the sorts of executives who get to test the hypotheses that live in their minds tend to be found at or near the summit of their organisations —we quickly start to see the [[paradox]]ical nature of ''mandated organisational change'': the mandate must come from those who have lived their best lives within the status quo, and who have most to lose from any change.

The argument runs like this: the will to ''change'' derives from the conviction that one’s current configuration is, somehow, ''wrong'': for its notional set of goals, sub-optimal, dysfunctional, elliptical or just ''broken'': out of step with the times.  

For change to come, that conviction must live in the mind of someone with the wherewithal to ''bring'' it.  

Now, however much they might present to the outside world as embodiments of the free market, within their walls, most commercial organisations are dictatorships.<ref>The analogy is eerily precise. There is a tight command-and-control structure, centralised dissemination and revision of information, and all is ably supported by a [[human resources|clandestine internal agency]] whose job is to keep the rank and file in a state of fear, and stamp out those malcontents who don’t get the message. </ref> Only those at the very top of have any kind of wherewithal, other than ''to do what they are told''.