The desire to engineer change
No system is perfect. There are always two forces acting on the System. One that wants to maintain the status quo, while the other roots for change. The forces that want to keep the status quo sees the positives in current scenario while they are not comfortable with the unpredictability of change. Whereas the forces that propose change are always idealising the non-existing scenario and argue on the benefits of the change and while pointing out the faults in the existing system.
Branding Example
Whenever a new Marketing head assumes office, a consultant comes on board, or an agency takes advertising or marketing of a brand, the first thing they do is change the logo or the packaging. What do they want to accomplish. Their argument is simple, something is wrong with the perception by the customer about the existing marketing, product, company, hence we begin by changing the physical appearance. The reality is, they are probably too lazy to analyze to find the real problem, instead look to start afresh with a cosmetic overhaul.
Governance Example
The term 'incumbent' describes exactly what I am trying to explain. The electorate is bored about the existing government and hence, the rival party gets a chunk of support in the hope that they will probably provided better governance, even though they are fully aware of the flaws of the opposition. Only because they see the opposition as the only viable alternative because they have a short memory and remember the faults of the existing government.
Inevitability of change
Without sounding overtly supporting status quo, I can only say that I am too skeptical of any radical change. Yes, change is inevitable. Change is necessary. But the bigger question is, how much and how drastic a change can we accept.
On the other hand, arguing for change, I can only say that, no drastic change can ever happen with real consensus. It can be brought only by a revolution(ary) - preferably without violence. Yes, democracy is a system that ensures status quo, because, by sheer numbers, the number of people who prefer status quo combined with those who are either moderate in ideas or indifferent to the notion are more than the number of people who want change. They form a vast majority of any system. .
History has shown us that those with the power to change in general are resistant to change and prefer the status quo, as they feel the very power That the system has bestowed upon them will be under threat if there is a drastic change. As a result, the forces that are proposing change gathers momentum slowly and reaches a point of break out and a revolution is caused.
On the moderate argument, change is inevitable, irrespective of the fact that the change was planned and engineered or not.
The question arises that how do we bring about change for the betterment. Well, all we can do is…
1. Propose an idea and leave it in the public domain
This idea has to have organic growth and a general consensus on the methodology l over time. The idea will germinate in due course of time. Of course, there has to be a systematic evangelism for the change. People who believe in the cause and believe in the new idea.
2. Accept reality
Real consensus will never happen. That is the reality. Especially if the change proposed is drastic. A leader provides the motivation by his sheer will of conviction.
3. Test change ideas
Implement change in small areas and prove change will work. Then scale the change. Proof of the model is essential. This also poses an inherent risk of that it may not work ideally and not produce the desired effects. In which case, the change may have to be tweaked. Also, this implies that the first test case should not be overly publicised before seeing the results. If publicised, it runs he risk of being dissected too early and denounced.
4. The agent of change is as important as the change itself.
As a judge, the agent of change has to be impeccable. Unblemished. Have an infallible image. Unfortunately perception is more important than the message itself.
5. Know what change might actually work.
Advocates for change either oppose the people or the system. In trying to address this they often in the pretext of changing the system end up just changing the people, which will not serve the purpose.
6. Delicate balance of the system
When proposing change, one has to be very mindful that the existing system is in a delicate balance. Like an ecosystem. In the name of change, we should not accidentally tip the balance in anybody's favour. Once the balance is tipped, to regain that balance might take a little amount of time.
(Un)Real benefits of change
Having brought about change, what can we foresee in terms of benefits. Well, cynical as I may sound, the change itself will most probably bring about a minor change, that which cannot be denied would have happened anyways.
The power centers may change, but there cannot be a system with no power centre. Therefore inherently within any system will have flaws.
Let us say, the existing system is a tree. What if all the leaves wither and fall off, and new ones grow in their place. It still remains a tree. The tree itself does not change. It's functions do not change. It only looks greener. Even if we had caused the change, the by itself in due course would have shed its leaves and new leaves grown naturally, even if we did not wish it. This parable begs the question, do we have a problem with the leaves or the tree. Also, the leaves themselves are produced by the system (tree) and inherently not too different from the ones that withered.
The leaves of a mango tree may have withered, but come what may, it will sprout new mango leaves, not banana leaves. Again the parable begs the question what is the problem with mango leaves that annoys us and makes us beg for change. Even if the tree sprouts banana leaves, in what way will the leaves function differently. It will also provide the nourishment that mango leaves would have provided, and in time they too will age and wither. All leaves will be leaves. All systems will be systems, albeit with inherent flaws.
We are only naïve in looking at a system that produces a mango and think that it might be better if it produces other fruits. A tree is a tree. A fruit is a fruit. Just wishing another fruit does not make it a real change.
Conclusion
Instead of ending on a cynical note, I wish to state that, engineering change is not just an art, or science. It is fortuitous. It is almost by chance. Almost. That does not mean we should not try and engineer change. Every one of us should throw up new ideas that might spawn change. You put it out there as a tree disperses it's seeds. And just like a seed, some of them will take root and grow and change the world. It will. One day it will.
