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|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''.
}}{{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 from the present state of affairs, ''before'' any 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