Stephen Billing’s Blog

It is not that helpful to think of organisational change as a move from one equilibrium state to another.

To say that "Change is constant" is pretty much a meaningless bromide, a platitude. It is such a common saying that it has lost its meaning. Most people would agree with it and think nothing of it.

We say that change is constant without giving it another thought. But most of us think about our organisations as normally being in a state of equilibrium. And if your organisation is not in equilibrium, no doubt that is because it is in the process of moving from a current (equilibrium) state to a desired (new equilibrium) state.

If your change projects are based on a gap analysis, then you are thinking of your organisation as moving to a new equilibrium. Of course, we don’t think too much about this equilibrium way of thinking, because we take it so much for granted. So much so that it almost seems to be a default way of thinking.

But consider this for a moment. A state of equilibrium is a state where change is not happening, where stability is constant. By definition, in a state of equilibrium, change is not constant.

So if your people are talking about change in terms of a desired state and a current state, and how to move from one to another, they are inherently talking about moving from one equilibrium state to another. If they are also saying ‘change is constant,’ they are contradicting themselves.

Consider your own thoughts about this. Is your organisation currently in your desired state? No doubt it is not, because I am sure there are changes you want to make, things you want to improve. Are you thinking of how you can move from your current state to your desired state? Is the desired state some kind of resting place before working out what the next desired state is? I think most of us would say yes, this seems very natural.

This is a very seductive way of thinking that most of us take for granted. However, we also know from our own experience that change is constant. This just does not go with the idea of moving your organisation to a new state.

Organisations being in equilibrium is an analogy taken from chemistry, where a chemical reaction can be contained in a state of equilibrium, and in physics where opposing forces can cancel each other out, leading to equilibrium. These analogies have been imported directly into our thinking about organisations. Kurt Lewin is the acknowledged father of this way of thinking back in the 1950s, and his contribution to the field is undoubtedly significant.

But our organisations are not chemicals reacting in a test tube. And they are certainly not predictable mechanical forces of the kind that Newton described so well. Our organisations are made up of people who have consciousness, the ability to relate to each other and highly developed ability to learn and change as a result of those interactions.

This equilibrium thinking simply does not serve us well. Nor do the associated tools (I want to call it illusory baggage) – gap analysis, well documented steps and predictable change stages.

Related post – here.