So many lessons to draw from #GE2109 for anyone working in org change ...
I’m hearing many people saying that Labour manifesto policies were popular, presumably in focus groups. But having policies even good policies, written down wasn’t enough ...
Novel, radical policies don’t sell themselves, and people don’t read documents, they don’t seek out info, especially in complex situations, and even if they do, exposure to alternative arguments reinforces prior beliefs, this is well known ...
Also well known is human tendency to make choices that are bad for us, like smoking or texting while driving, so we shouldn’t be surprised that people vote in ways that are objectively harmful to their self interest ...
Cabals are exclusive and do not scale, they are stained with the imprint of the founder(s) and are repellent to non believers ...
The presence of cabals, like the availability of information (or policies) may be more effective in creating enemies than developing followers ...
It’s still easier to mobilise people against something rather than for something ...
We have also learned that movements must engage the real people that exist, not idealised people whom you may imagine or prefer to exist. If you fail to grasp this point, change will likely be done to you (and not in ways you’ll like) not by you ...
It goes without saying that we have learned about the need to pay attention and respond to early warning signs and patterns, and feedback from all sources. People need to feel able and safe to call out issues (with leadership, with strategy etc) without fear or consequence ...
Tactics first, strategy later. Tactics for engagement, to build relationships, to get permission and invite people in. Tactics first, vision and strategy later ...
Use language carefully and inclusively. Beware freighted or contentious terms and terms known to trigger suspicion/rejection. And don’t, just don’t, identify and define your movement using such terms. It’s nearly 2020. No one wants more ‘socialism’, ‘agile transformation’ etc ...
Outcomes are more important than the means of achieving them. Results over ideology. Commit to the outcomes, and be selective, pragmatic, tactical and intelligent about the means ...
Make it fun. The ideologue’s zeal and earnestness are both alarming and boring, they dampen engagement and curiosity, and they throw up barriers to participation, co-creation and co-ownership. Don’t take yourself too seriously ...
But be deadly serious about your responsibility to finish what you’ve started, to see it through, to achieve your outcomes. Commit to and own that. Never let that be in doubt. A leader who is not serious about getting some place new isn’t leading anyone ...
Be careful of the highly visible and influential people who attach to your movement. Openness, inclusiveness and co-creation are important of course. But keep watch on the behaviours of members of the ‘guiding coalition’ — are they helping or hindering the cause ...?
Control your movement’s influencers, but be open to learn from everyone who has succeeded where you wish to succeed, even if their ideology is objectionable to you. Important lessons are often found very close to home ...
Be aware, be very aware, of defining your movement against these home-grown exemplar and successes, just because you object to the people who originated them. Get over yourself. Think tactics. Tactics always first ...
What we’ve learned (once again) is that the behaviours of systems are not predictable, your actions do not lead directly to outcomes. You don’t control, you only influence. The consequences are emergent. Hence tactics first. Failure to grasp this is by now just plain stupid ...
Be constantly vigilant for all and any signs of hubris, smugness, self-love, exceptionalism, vanity, immodesty or pretension in your movements, and act against them ...
The support and followership that matter are mostly silent and unseen. They don’t wave flags, put banners in their windows, attend rallies, blog, tweet or make noise. But they show up. You can hear your detractors if you choose to listen. But support and engagement are silent ...
Think small and incremental, avoid grand plans. People prefer small, short-term gains over longer-term gains even when longer-term gains are greater. Psychologists call this hyperbolic discounting ...
So while Labour policies were popular, the manifesto was perceived to be excessive and over reaching. Jon Lansman, leader of the Corbyn campaign group, Momentum: ‘The manifesto was too detailed and too long. It was a programme for 10 years, not for government’ ...
People are wary of being bought. A Labour source said: ‘The free broadband was really unpopular ... people thought “this is a weird luxury, why on earth are we being offered this?” ...
Don’t take anything or anyone for granted. Except randomness ...
While things are going well for us we are blinded to randomness and lack of certainty. Too much success, too much comfort and flattery are the enemy ...
Empiricism is hard. It takes discipline, work and courage to introspect, to confront oneself, to be self sceptical ...
We should learn to undervalue our knowledge and be sceptical of what we know to be right. We should learn to assume that we know nothing and what little we may know is likely wrong ...
Factionalism corrupts and ongoing unresolved factionalism corrupts absolutely. It consumes all energy and focus, and it communicates odium, spite, untrustworthiness and incompetence ...
You have to surf the zeitgeist. You may not like the zeitgeist, it may offend your principles, but you cannot turn the tide. You have to learn to work with and take advantage of macro environmental drifts (social, cultural, technological, etc). Only losers complain about them ...
You are never the one to judge if and when the ‘argument’ is won, and if you find yourself saying ‘we won the argument,’ you didn’t ...
‘Arguments’ are never settled, this is 20th century thinking. The environment is dynamic and open ended, it’s nature is emergent. It may console and flatter you to say ‘we won the argument’ but it’s self deception when the outcomes have gone so far against your intentions ...
It’s commonplace to cite trust as a key factor in change and movements, so let’s look a little at the role of trust here ...
Scholars recognise, among others, three types of trust that are significant for progress of orgs, change and movements: benevolence-based, integrity-based, and competence-based trust ...
Benevolence-based trust occurs when we perceive and believe that others including ‘leaders’ will act with our interests in mind, and not just their own ...
We are not so naïve to expect that leaders won’t act in their own interests, but we trust them if we believe they will also act in our best interests ...
Integrity-based trust occurs when we perceive and believe that the decisions and actions of others inc ‘leaders’ are consistent with what they espouse ...
Again, we are not so naïve as to require 100pc fidelity between what people say and what they do, since we know they have their own interests and agendas, but there has to be sufficient visible consistency for integrity-based trust to occur ...
Finally on trust, credibility-based trust occurs when we see and believe that others have the expertise they claim ...
So we can see that ‘Get Brexit Done’ was effective in tapping these forms of trust: benevolent, because ‘will of the people’; integrity, because there’s a straight line between intent and action; and competency because the PM can already claim form here with his ‘deal’ ...
It’s not clear that the opposition was able to demonstrate any dimension of trust in respect of Brexit or anything else ...
Disclaimer at this point. I am not seeking to celebrate the victors or heap scorn on the losers here. I seek only to reflect on #GE2019 and draw possibly useful lessons for org change and social movements for anyone who may be interested ...
I am seeing ongoing emphasis on the quality of the ideas in the Labour manifesto including from @johnmcdonnellMP
Evidently, good ideas alone are not sufficient. What’s more, we know from repeated studies that people do not value others’ ideas, we value our own ideas more ...
Evidently, good ideas alone are not sufficient. What’s more, we know from repeated studies that people do not value others’ ideas, we value our own ideas more ...
Ariely describes experiments where participants were asked to come up with ideas to solve problems (such as reducing water use, gross national happiness and more effective alarm clocks), and to rate their ideas alongside ideas of other participants including ‘experts’ ...
In all cases, participants rated their own suggestions as more practical, having greater potential for success and so on, and they said they would be prepared to invest greater amounts of own time and money in their own suggestions than in others’ ideas ...
This is called ‘idiosyncratic fit’ — an individual’s ideas fit better with her own unique perspectives on the world. In other words, we prefer our own ideas not because they are ours but because they fit with our underlying beliefs and preferences ...
Others’ ideas may be interesting and attractive superficially, but they are not ours, they are exogenous, they don’t ‘fit’ with us, and we are prepared to make little investment in them ...
You will know what this feels like if you’ve ever worked in an org where a new director arrives with bright ideas for change ...
So it is possible that the quality and quantity of policy ideas in the Labour manifesto had the exact opposite of the effect intended — they didn’t ‘fit’, they triggered alienation as well as confusion (there were so many) and suspicion (‘why are we being offered this?’) ...
Of course, it’s impossible to personalise policies for every voter, but we know enough from sociology, psychology to have been able to predict that fewer, poorly defined ideas (as in the Conservative manifesto) may be more effective, or less problematic, than many good ones ...
I will close this thread now with some observations on what we have learned about the nature and role of leadership ...
I’ll limit these to two things. First, situational awareness. In short, it seems to me, the Cons played and won the game they were in. They sensed the context in the country well, and they manipulated it to their advantage ...
Labour tried to play a different game and lost. They imagined a different reality and demonised their own candidates who spoke up. They imagined they could create an entirely new reality through policies, rather than accept the need to sense, respond, adapt and contextualise ...
This failure to observe and read the situation, to orient to context, and to define and execute a context/sensitive strategy, is a colossal failure of leadership ...
You will object that the Cons manipulated the failings, the biases and irrationalities of voters and I won’t disagree ...
Positive leadership in this context is about saving us from the downsides of our irrational nature, and finding ways to channel and exploit the upsides of our nature ...
From my POV, Labour demanded that voters be perfectly rational, that we read the manifesto and make calculated choices, against our nature. This leaves us prey to villains with simplistic solutions and empty promises ...
This expectation, that voters, people, should behave and should choose perfectly logically and rationally is a grotesque failure of judgement, leadership and responsibility for which we all pay. And it’s a tragedy because it was predictable based on science ...
That’s it. I’m done. Thanks to everyone who has engaged, liked, shared and replied. I’m delighted to have made some new connections with this. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
