Otis White

The skills and strategies of civic leadership

A Formula for Change

By

Is there a way, before starting out on a change process, to know how much change the community will accept? Not really, because, as in card games, luck and your skill as a player will have a major bearing. But there is a way of thinking about what causes communities (or organizations or even individuals) to accept change. And if you use this simple formula as a guide, it should increase the odds that, luck and skill aside, the change should be significant.

It’s called the Harvard Change Model, and it has three elements:

  • Dissatisfaction with the status quo
  • A model or vision of how things would work if the issues were fully resolved
  • A plan for getting to that vision

When written as a sentence it looks like this: The level of change (that’s the delta symbol above) is equal to the amount of dissatisfaction times the clarity of the model (or vision) times the acceptance of the plan for achieving the model. Change = D x M x P

I’ll explain in a minute how the formula works, but first a note about how I learned about it. It was from David Connell, who was head of corporate education at a large utility company based in Atlanta. We had started work on a regional economic development project when he took out a marker and, on a flip chart, wrote down the formula and explained it to me. He had learned it from consultants from the Harvard Business School; hence, the name. We used the formula in that civic project and several others in the next few years, and I’ve used it ever since. (By the way, David is now the president and CEO of the Cobb Chamber of Commerce in suburban Atlanta, so civic work apparently agreed with him.)

Now, about the formula: It is based on the commonsense notion that no one accepts change unless he’s unhappy with the way things are, has faith that things could be better, and knows what will come next (and what might be asked of him). So the work of those who want change is to:

  • Increase the level of dissatisfaction (push up “D”).
  • Help people arrive at an appealing model of the future (push up “M”).
  • Win broad acceptance of a plan for reaching the model (push up “P”).

But what’s with the multiplication? It’s there, David explained, because each element amplifies the others. The greater the level of dissatisfaction, the greater the desire to find an appealing vision. The clearer the vision, the more people are motivated to take the first steps toward it. And so on.

If you plug in some numbers, you can see more clearly how it works. If you have significant dissatisfaction (7 on a scale of 1 to 10), but don’t get much buy-in on a vision (2) or a plan (again, 2), here’s how much change you’ll get: 7 x 2 x 2 = 28.

But let’s say you could somehow double the acceptance of the vision and plan (that is, from go from 2 to 4), here’s what you’d get: 7 x 4 x 4 = 112 or four times as much change. And if you could do equally as well with the vision and plan as with the dissatisfaction? 7 x 7 x 7 = 343, which raises the level of change by a factor of more than 12.

The numbers, of course, are illustrative. I’m not sure I could distinguish what separates people at level 6 dissatisfaction from those at level 7. But the point is that each element is important and connected. And by working hard on each part, you multiply your effectiveness.

After David explained it to me, he wrote down another version of the formula. This time, he said, let’s imagine you had the highest level of dissatisfaction possible along with an almost universal acceptance of how things could work in the future . . . but had no plan for achieving it. In other words, 10 x 10 x 0. What level of change would you get, he asked me.

It has been a long time since I learned algebra, but even I knew the answer. When you place a zero in an equation, you get . . . zero. And if you neglect any element of the change process, that’s what you can expect: zero change.

This is part of a series of brief postings called Rules for Reformers. For an introduction to the series, please click here.

Three Ps of Public Policy

By

The most fundamental thing a leader has to know when trying to create change in a city is where to concentrate his efforts. You have only so much energy and attention. What should you pay attention to? That’s where the three Ps—the three big questions every major change has to answer—comes in handy.

  1. How will we pay for this change?
  2. How will we manage the politics?
  3. How will we bring along the public?

Simple questions, but none will have easy answers. The first is a recognition that every important change has a cost, and nearly always it includes a financial cost. If you want to make your city more walkable, how will you pay for new sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and streetscapes? If your aim is to bring in new industries or encourage entrepreneurship, who will do this and how will you pay for their time? I could give a dozen more examples but you get the idea.

The second big question is about politics. Inevitably, every major change must be approved by someone, and that usually involves a political body (or two, or three, or more). Someone has to explain the changes and their benefits to elected or appointed officials and ask for their approval. And if you’re going to be persuasive, you have to understand these political officials and their interests and make a convincing case. That, in a nutshell, is managing the politics of change. How will you do that?

The final strategic question is about the public. Even if the change doesn’t require a referendum, it’s unlikely to succeed if the public is dead set against it. First, there aren’t many elected officials who will stand up to a large group of constituents who are enraged by a change. Second, there are simply too many ways for opponents to defeat unpopular policies. If they can’t get elected officials to vote it down, opponents will go to court. If that doesn’t work, they’ll turn to another government (say, the state or federal government). Or they’ll protest. Many an unpopular road project has been stopped by protesters chaining themselves to trees.

So before embarking on a change effort, work on strategies for each of the Ps. The bonus: They are mutually reinforcing. That is, the more the public supports a public policy proposal, the more political support you’ll gain. If you have a creative way of paying for a change, it makes public and political support that much easier. And if the public and politicians support an idea, others (foundations or private companies) are usually more willing to chip in.

Remember: Think through the three Ps. Do it from the start. And don’t neglect them along the way.

This is part of a series of brief postings called Rules for Reformers. For an introduction to the series, please click here.

Rules for Reformers

By

I’m beginning a series of short postings about how cities decide things and how leaders can help their communities make smarter decisions. I’m calling these brief essays “Rules for Reformers.” Each will have an illustration, some scribbled key words, or a hand-drawn chart that, I hope, will make the ideas stick a little longer with you. (If the drawings seem a tad childish, feel free to blame the artist, who is . . . me.)

The rules come from conversations I’ve had over the years with civic leaders. The best leaders I’ve known—from mayors and county executives to chamber executives and CEOs—operate mostly from tacit knowledge, a set of understandings about power, change, and human nature that they accumulate over a lifetime and which becomes instinctual. As a result, they know how to get things done, they just can’t explain how they do it, and they certainly can’t teach it. This is fine with me because I’m in the explaining business.

My caution is that this is that these brief postings are meant to be simple, and maybe even overly simple. They’re general rules, not a guide to every circumstance. More than anything else, I hope you’ll turn to them when you’re stuck on a civic problem or obstacle. By reading a few of these rules, you may come across something that helps you figure a way through the problem or around the obstacle.

And about the name . . . Some of you have already figured out it’s a play on the name that the legendary Chicago organizer Saul Alinsky gave to his 1971 book, “Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.” I’m not a fan of Alinsky’s or of his book. For one thing, I’m no radical. For another, his book isn’t actually helpful for people wanting to learn about community organizing. It’s more of a collection of war stories with a few philosophical musings (and even a sexist joke) thrown in. But it’s a great name.

So, with apologies to the late Mr. Alinsky, here are my “Rules for Reformers.” I’ll start with a few, add a few more, and we’ll see where things go from there. Please let me know what you think.

Here are the first Rules for Reformers: Three Ps of Public Policy, A Formula for Change and “What” Before “How.” Others will follow.

About Otis White

Otis White is president of Civic Strategies, Inc., a collaborative and strategic planning firm for local governments and civic organizations. He has written about cities and their leaders for more than 30 years. For more information about Otis and his work, please visit www.civic-strategies.com.

The Great Project

Otis White's multimedia book, "The Great Project," is available on Apple iTunes for reading on an iPad. The book is about how a single civic project changed a city and offers important lessons for civic leaders considering their own "great projects" . . . and for students in college planning and political science programs.

For more information about the book, please visit the iTunes Great Project page.

Follow Us on Twitter and Facebook

You can find Otis White's urban issues updates by searching for @OtisWhite. And you can "like" us on Facebook.