82,853
edits
Change paradox: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
}}{{smallcaps|We take it that}}, like any other intellectual proposition,<ref>We speak of none other than the [[Duhem-Quine thesis]] as to the theory-dependence of observation: that it is impossible to test a scientific hypothesis in isolation, because any test presupposes one or more background assumptions and auxiliary hypotheses.</ref> every management initiative must be driven by some ''theory'' or other — that is, it must be designed to prove out a hypothesis that ''already exists in someone’s mind''. | }}{{smallcaps|We take it that}}, like any other intellectual proposition,<ref>We speak of none other than the [[Duhem-Quine thesis]] as to the theory-dependence of observation: that it is impossible to test a scientific hypothesis in isolation, because any test presupposes one or more background assumptions and auxiliary hypotheses.</ref> every management initiative must be driven by some ''theory'' or other — that is, it must be designed to prove out a hypothesis that ''already exists in someone’s mind''. | ||
Seeing as the minds whose hypotheses get tested tend to belong to those at or near the summit of their organisations, we see at once the [[paradox]]ical nature of ''mandated organisational change'': the mandate for change must come from those who have lived their best lives within, because of, and thanks to, the status quo: those who have flourished | Seeing as the minds whose hypotheses get tested tend to belong to those at or near the summit of their organisations, we see at once the [[paradox]]ical nature of ''mandated organisational change'': the mandate for change must come from those who have lived their best lives within, because of, and thanks to, the status quo: those who have flourished in the present state of affairs, ''without'' it being changed. | ||
Those, that is to say, ''who have most to lose'' ''from change''. | Those, that is to say, ''who have most to lose'' ''from change''. We propose, therefore, a rhetorical question: why would ''they'' want to change anything? | ||
The argument runs like this: a “will to change” derives from a conviction that one’s current configuration is, somehow, ''wrong'': that the organisation is sub-optimal, dysfunctional, elliptical or just ''broken''. | The argument runs like this: a “will to change” derives from a conviction that one’s current configuration is, somehow, ''wrong'': that the organisation is sub-optimal, dysfunctional, elliptical or just ''broken''. | ||