Change paradox: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|devil|
{{a|devil|
[[File:Whos Next.png|450px|thumb|center|Meet the new boss.]]
[[File:Whos Next.png|450px|thumb|center|Meet the new boss.]]
}}{{smallcaps|If we take it}} that, like any other intellectual proposition,<ref>I 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 that the minds whose hypotheses get tested tend to belong to those at or near the summit of their organisations — we see 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: things as they are ''before'' change. Those, that is to say, ''who have most to lose'' ''from change''.
}}{{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 that the minds whose hypotheses get tested tend to belong to those at or near the summit of their organisations — we see 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: things as they are ''before'' change. Those, that is to say, ''who have most to lose'' ''from change''.


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''.  

Navigation menu