If change were easy, we would have new marketing that is interesting, new topics at conferences and events, and plenty of new ideas and novel executions to feed on. We would also have little room for echo chambers. The truth is that change is easier to talk about than it is to do. Execution is vital, and willingness is crucial.
A few years ago, Fast Company was undergoing a lot of change. In many ways it and plenty of other publications still are. Change was one of the topics they chronicled. There was a whole series of articles and conversations dedicated to change. Yet, when change became necessary it was hard to implement. Remember Alan Deutschman's book Change or Die?
The client tells you that they'd like to see something very different. "We've been doing the same old thing for years," they tell you, "why don't you show us something else?" The trouble with that is often something else is quite vague. It means anywhere from "I'll know it when I see it," to "it does not look like something we'd do and say." Or, in the best of circumstances, the answer has been staring them in the face for years. They just need you, a third party, to tell them it will work. Be prepared to fight them on it, it will look and sound too easy. It's not. Execution matters.
All leadership comes down to this: changing people's behavior. Why is that so damn hard? Writes Deutschman. What happens when it is the leader who does not want to change? When he is hiding behind the idea of wanting to make a clean breast of things while he is paying lip service to giving the example. That is tricky territory. Change is not a prescription you give to others.
Choice gives us the illusion of change. I cannot recall when was the last time that an agency could propose only one recommendation. Richard Huntington at Adliterate puts it so well: we are spoiled by choice. Having lots of options only means delaying the moment of truth, when we will need to make a decision on direction. Would you much rather be exactly wrong or be surprising and interesting? Your choice.
[Michelangelo in the Agony and the Ecstasy, viewing time 2:46. Hat tip to Brian Millar]
Returning to your original observation - the absence of new.
I am re-assured by the general agreement that change is a constant.
What puzzles me is why, as has been observed in the past:
# "the more things change the more they stay the same"
#"If we don’t change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed”
"If you do the same thing over and over and nothing changes - you haven't done it for long enough"
My work in progress (WIP - preferred over IMO) is that:
# action and movement - personal intervention in the moment - designed to produce "the new" doesn't (and if it does - its just a co-incidence).
# Before you get to choice (WIP - a white rabbit anyway) - what do we really know about the direction of things
(direction is a hobby of mine).
The "new" or how thing come to being in wondrous and surprising ways may require much more from us. No doubt including the practice of "all things are or become in the presence of observation".
A lovely exchange:
From doing "The truth is that change is easier to talk about than it is to do. Execution is vital, and willingness is crucial."
To not doing "all things are or become in the presence of observation."
And everything in between.
Posted by: Peter | June 24, 2008 at 11:02 PM
@Peter - my take is that change just is (or isn't) depending on your acknowledgment of it. All things are or become in the presence of our observation.
@Sam - have you ever re-read a book you so cherished in the past? Did it feel different when you re-read it? It probably did. What changes and how it impacts things depend on our angle and filter. One of my favorite quotes is when we change the way we look at things, the things we look at change.
Posted by: Valeria Maltoni | June 20, 2008 at 06:53 AM
Hi Valeria,
What a thought provoking piece. The dialogue it generated is fantastic.
I think it's not a question of if change is necessary or needed. In my experience, it is that change is what is, always. The illusion is that there is not change. Perhaps it is not only do or die but change or die...
The question then becomes how to embrace change so that the desired results or goals are achieved. After the how has been established, then yes, a buy-in by all parties effect would be required.
Again, fantastic discussion. Thank you all!
Sam
Posted by: copywriting | June 20, 2008 at 12:49 AM