Constancy is paramount in the storm of change
One of the most significant facts about humanity,” noted the anthropologist Clifford Geertz, “may finally be that we all begin with the natural equipment to live a thousand kinds of life but end in the end having lived only one.”
Geertz’s words speak to the wonder of unlived lives. Where and when we are born is an accident of history. Yet it sets us on a path that, for the most part, changes little as we age. Sure, we can switch jobs and pivot along the way. But, for most individuals, the world we inhabit is an artefact of birth. Humans born to wealthy families in Old Europe command the same genetic tools as those born to a Serengeti tribe, but the European lives one life, the African a different one. Rarely, if ever, does the same human spend her life in more than one world.
Why not? The answer comes from a human preference for stability. The science is clear. The American Psychology Association has shown that humans prefer a sense of control and are more motivated when part of reliable interpersonal relationships. Other studies similarly indicate that we perform better when our environment is predictable. Permanency matters.
This makes it peculiar that modern leadership theory centers so often on managing change. If it is stability that makes us tick, shouldn’t our aim be constancy rather than elasticity?
When Ashley Goodall led a research team at the tech giant Cisco, he unearthed a telling truth. Three conditions predicted high team performance. The first condition centered on individuals: employees had clarity and consistency about their role and the way they could deploy their skills. The second condition related to teams: members supported each other and had a collective grasp of what success looked like. The final condition focused on organizations: the wider mission of the company resonated with teams and their members.
But here’s the rub: each of the three conditions varied by team. Only the second of the three conditions related directly to team dynamics. Yet this condition remained the key arbitrator of the other two. Those in well-functioning, stable teams likely meet all three conditions. “Our experience of work is created by those around us,” writes Goodall in the Harvard Business Review. “The different sets of conditions were those that distinguished the higher performing teams. And stability runs like a seam through all of them.”
Change management is in vogue. The world is volatile. Thus, adaptability and changeability is prized. Sure, agility in business can be valuable. But the fact that impermanence is normalized ought not make it desirable. Quite the opposite. In an uncertain world, there is a case for seeking the sanctuary of stability rather than the ambiguity of change. “We have come to believe that change is (necessarily) good, that disruption is (necessarily) the way to a better future, and that when people resist the latest new strategy or structure, that resistance is a failure to be overcome, rather than a signal of what humans need at work,” writes Goodall. “Of course, some change is necessary, and some is inevitable. But not all of it.”
So pervasive is the preoccupation with change management that the idea of stability management barely exists in the consciousness of many organizations. Yet it should, because stability breeds relatability, agency, security – all things that are proven indicators of high team-performance. The key to creating winning organizations is fostering stable teams, not amorphous companies.
When Geertz wrote about humanity being equipped for a thousand lives yet leading just one, he might have extended his theory to organizations. Innovation, flexibility and agility are precursors to success. Yet the companies that succeed in the long-term are grounded in enduring principles, drawing resilience from stable, coherent teams built on shared understanding. They stand strong in the storm of change, like rocks in
the rain.
Vishal Patel is president of global markets at Duke Corporate Education