Change agents need to make tough choices for their credibility
Playing "Love it, change it or leave it" the right way
Being a change agent sounds like a great job: Inspiring and leading others to change the bigger picture. In reality, for this to work, a lot of conditions need to be in place: Every change agent needs a sponsor. The change agent needs to be trusted. And both the people and the organization need to be willing to change. Otherwise, it won't work.
Change agents work with influence, not power. For them, the same rule applies as for everyone else: They are the only person they can really change. If they are not trusted, there is little use in trying to prove their value. They need to serve both honey and vinegar to be effective.
What if they have a sponsor, they are trusted to be able to inspire and lead, but still there is no felt urgency to change by either the people or the overall organization? People tend to underestimate the degree of change that is necessary and possible, and it might be that only the first half of this truth has been understood. But what if it is clear that even big, positive change is possible, yet there is no follow-up action?
I compare this situation to a diet coach that first gets hired, then teaches people about healthier nutrition and how to integrate more physical activity in the daily life. After months, the suggestions are not picked up on a broader level. While many people agree that this is both valuable and actionable, the overall environment still acts according to the same old incentives that are about "winning cake-eating contests".
How can this happen? Why do companies hire change agents and then do not take action? Hired but ineffective change agents can help calm down a bad conscience or serve as a living decoration to avoid blame game ("we actually have someone for this; if nothing happens, it is their fault"). Remember that money is not a costly signal. How many gyms live from selling seasonal tickets and then people show up only once or twice? But for a true believer of change, this is not satisfying.
How to deal with such a disappointment? One option is to become bitter to protect yourself against feeling hurt even more. But bitter people rarely inspire others or evoke change. The change agents would rob themselves of their central principles and behaviors. If out of the classical three options "Love it, change it or leave it", the second one does not seem available despite all attempts, two others remain.
The first one means going the way of the fitness studio: You get paid, nothing happens, you still make the money. To a degree, you are even more profitable because your equipment gets used by a fraction than what people paid for. But of course, you must be ok with running a business that serves as a trophy for many of its customers. And you must accept that if you keep playing this theater, you will lose your credibility in the long run.
If you really believe in your mission and you do not see change, then there seems to be only one option: Eventually, you have to leave. That is a tough choice to make. I have experienced several examples where hired change agents rather went away although they could have continued to take the money. I hold these persons in high regard and would always recommend them for a future assignment. That is the upside of being able to make challenging decisions.
Just as their environment and their sponsors, change agents need to be aware that they are not alone responsible. There are not in control. Most of control is an illusion. But most of helplessness as well. There is always a viable option, even if it sounds daring at the start.
This an idea that I had on my mind ever since I became a full-time change agent. I have seen surprisingly little mentioning of the last option in the literature, with a very honorable exception in The Zombie Scrum Survival Guide.
The Clash: Should I Stay or Should I Go