My Latest Research Question: Can You Think Your Way Through Today’s Change?

Over the last few years, it feels like the rug has been pulled out from under our feet. We’ve talked a lot about the pace of change over the years, but today it just feels chaotic, and that’s taking a toll on our organizations and the people inside them. We’re experiencing more anxiety, turnover, flare-ups of resistance, decision paralysis, and continuous questioning of strategies. It doesn’t feel sustainable, and it’s not. The strategies we’re choosing to deal with this turbulence are not working.

That is what has prompted my current research project, because I think leaders need some answers to this challenge pronto. As I was formulating my hypothesis, I kept coming back to the phrase “proceed until apprehended,” which has been attributed to Florence Nightingale, who effectively invented the modern hospital as a woman in the 1800s, so she was not one for waiting around for permission. But I like the phrase better than the permission/forgiveness version because you’re not apologizing. You’re taking clear action (proceed), even though you’re fully aware that someone is going to try to stop you (apprehended).

Both the proceed side and the apprehended side are problems for us. First, on proceed, leaders are not taking enough action; organizations over-value concepts while under-valuing practices, a conclusion that came from my own culture change research. Across a decade of culture assessment data, the concept side of every dimension we measure averages 3.92 out of 5. The practice side averages 3.48. That gap shows up in all eight dimensions we measured. We all say we want things like innovation and transparency, and we do truly value those concepts, but we’re not running experiments or creating systems and processes that distribute information proactively. Our practices (actions) are the weak link.

In today’s complex/chaotic world, that bias against “proceeding” is killing us. When AI exploded onto the scene, we spent months debating a policy (concept), when we should have been visibly experimenting with tools (practice). When tariffs upended our supply chain, we commissioned a sourcing analysis (concept), when we should have been placing small trial orders with three new suppliers (practice). When customers started rebelling, we surveyed them one more time (concept), when we should have been creating mechanisms for involving them in decision making (practice).

To be clear, concepts are not bad and thinking is still important, but we are over-valuing concepts and delaying the practices, and we’re paying the price. So the first half of my research hypothesis is:

Leaders that emphasize quick and concrete actions and practices in solving today’s challenging problems will see better results than those who delay action to work longer on concepts.

One reason we don’t “proceed,” however, is that we are afraid of being “apprehended,” and that gets me to the second half of my hypothesis. When you take actions and deploy new practices, you trigger your organization’s immune system, which then sends “antibodies” to try and stop them. Change management has always called this resistance, but I call it a gift.

The immune system response shines an immediate light on real issues that have been there all along, but you couldn’t see them until you messed with people’s routines. Concepts don’t mess with people’s routines, so the issues remain invisible. The challenge, of course, is that addressing the issues requires difficult conflict conversations, and very few organizations are good at that.

For example, let’s say you deployed an AI tool (even before the policy was finished) and some departments refused to use it. You could ignore that, or you could make some passive/aggressive statements in all hands meetings about how important embracing AI is, or you could have that conflict quickly and out loud so their concerns (some of which are probably unrelated to the tool itself) can be addressed in the next rounds of tool deployments (and in other contexts). The unresolved issues generate friction which makes it impossible to meet the agility demands of today’s environment, so the second half of my hypothesis is:

Moving toward the conflict when resistance emerges and resolving it quickly and comprehensively will deliver faster and more effective change.

One ask: I’m collecting real examples of this dynamic. If any of this rings true, hit reply and tell me one or two things you tried to put in place this year and what came back at you when you did. A few sentences is plenty, and your replies will remain confidential. Thanks in advance!

--

For more information on my speaking or advisory services, visit JamieNotter.com.