Imagine a cardiologist telling each of his seriously at-risk heart patients, in no uncertain terms, "If you don't change your lifestyle, you will die". This was exactly the scenario reported in a well-documented medical study some years ago.
What do you think the chances are that a cardiac patient will actually change their habits- eat more healthily, exercise more, quit smoking etc?
Shockingly, only one in seven patients that have that "do or die" conversation with their doctor were actually able to make the changes. One in seven! If people can't make the changes they want to when their life quite literally depends on it, it's not surprising that it can sometimes be such a struggle to bring about change when the stakes and payoffs are less dramatic.
Some changes we can make by ourselves. We can usually implement some straightforward "technical" solution to a challenge that can be enough to produce the change we are looking for: For example, we can learn a new skill (or even a complex set of skills), we can follow practical tips, develop plans and strategies, and follow through on them. All these new technical skills can be incorporated into our current way of thinking.
Other changes are more difficult. Even if there is genuine desire and motivation to change, sometimes this just isn't enough. Chances are we are dealing with an "adaptive" rather than a "technical" challenge.
In their latest book "Immunity to Change", Kegan and Lahey* report on years of research into the phenomenon that, when there is genuine desire and commitment to make change within an organisation, difficulty in ( or resistance to) change usually doesn't reflect simple opposition or inertia. What is at work, rather, is that we are unwittingly caught up in a "competing commitment" : a subconscious, hidden, unrecognised goal that conflicts with our stated commitment. We engage in seemingly contradictory behaviours (the things we end up doing or not doing that actually work against our stated goal or commitment). These apparently contradictory behaviours become suddenly sensible and brilliant when we can see them as they really are, serving exactly the purpose that another part of us intends (our hidden competing commitments).
Consider for example, the person dragging his/her feet on an assignment at work.... who uncovers the unrecognised competing commitment to avoid being too successful on the task otherwise they might be given tougher, even more challenging assignments in the future that they fear they wouldn't be able to handle.
Or, in the more personal sphere, weight loss where obstructive behaviours like "I don't stop eating when I am full" or "I eat when I am bored" can turn out to be reflections of hidden competing commitments. For example, one person may discover that his overeating is not a solution to hunger but rather to uncomfortable feelings of emptiness and boredom; another may discover that her inability to keep off the weight she can lose by dieting is related to a need to keep her relationships de-sexualised, so ensuring that men take her seriously and relate to her as a person not as a sexual object.
Such adaptive challenges will not be resolved by technical solutions (personal effectiveness strategies or dieting, in the above examples)- just trying to eliminate the particular "obstructive behaviours" will not work, because they actually serve an important purpose within the system- by fulfilling the self-protection requirements of the "competing commitments".
It is clear that adaptive challenges and their solutions need more than learning new skills; they call for growth and development.
First one needs to uncover or "diagnose" the competing commitment(s). And then identify the "big assumption" - the " worldview" that colours what we see and generates the competing commitments.
The problem of course is that these assumptions are generally not seem as assumptions at all- we uncritically accept them as true. They are usually established quite early on in life. We never question them (until now). They are seen as facts, truths, "the way things are".
Challenging and questioning (maybe even transforming) our mindset requires us to challenge the limits of our thinking and adapt in some way... to move beyond our current
meaning-making system that influences our thoughts, feelings and behaviours....to test the validity of these long-held assumptions via experimentation, doing things differently from usual in a controlled, risk-free way.
Through challenge and support, we can engage in honest introspection and candid disclosure to discover the formerly invisible and unconscious ways we undermine ourselves. We can gain different perspectives that loosen the hold of these beliefs and assumptions.
It is fair to say that Kegan and Lahey are not saying anything new in the field of personal development.
It is generally accepted that we all have some "inner map" or sense of reality through which we interpret the world; and that we have different levels of capacity to be aware of our "inner map" and how we create our experiences through it (it's usually outside of our conscious awareness); that we have inner commitments and personal priorities in accordance with this map, and our hidden commitments have high priority- overriding any counter-intentions that conflict with them- because they are linked to some perception of our own "safety" (whether physical, psychological, emotional or social).
But what Kegan and Lahey have done is helped put personal change on the agenda for the business world with a language and model that makes it accessible, and they have shown that personal change is intertwined with organisational change.
Here are some of the questions they suggest working on:
- What change would you like to bring about in your life (or at work) so it could be more satisfying?
- What beliefs or commitments are implied by this change?
- What are you doing, or not doing, to keep your commitment from being (more fully) realised?
- Imagine doing the opposite of this undermining behaviour; what's the discomfort, worry or vague fear?
- By engaging in the undermining behaviour, what worrisome outcome are you committed to/ trying to prevent? ( a competing commitment)
Once you have a competing commitment, you can start discovering the "big assumption" that underlies it. Try creating a sentence stem that inverts the competing commitment, then "fill in the blank".
e.g. "I assume that if I ....then............."
"I am assuming that if......then......."
The whole process is, of course, not quite so quick and easy! But if you are struggling to make a change, by asking yourself such questions you may be onto something that will help you understand what might be behind YOUR resistance or inertia. This will help you begin to close the gap between what you intend and want to do..... and what you are able to do.
* Immunity to Change:How to Overcome It and Unlock
The Potential in Yourself and Your Organisation.
by Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey,
Harvard Business School Press, 2009
