Seven lessons for organisational change from the 2022 US mid-terms
Image courtesy of Element5 Digital on Unsplash
Like ham and eggs, change and political campaigning go hand in hand. After all, what would be the point of an election if there were no prospect of something different at the end of it?
For those that need reminding, spin-doctors and strategists routinely reference ‘change’ in campaign adverts, as if the very mention of the word confers legitimacy and authenticity on political messaging. In truth, it is not unreasonable to say that in the electioneering context, ‘change’ is an overused and often abused term. It is one that means everything to everyone and nothing to anyone, dependent on party-political affiliation.
Against this backdrop, that the 2022 US mid-terms will be remembered as one of the most consequential in US history. If the statements of the various participants were anything to go by, the American way of life and democracy itself were on the ballot. Unlike any other political campaign, perhaps since the US Presidential Election of 1864 the word ‘change’ seemed to have seismic implications.
With the mid-terms now over, I am struck by how easily its key lessons transcend the political campaign trails into the boardrooms, open-plan offices and remote work-spaces of entrepreneurs. In terms of ‘change’ and the applicability of learning about it, there genuinely seems to be something for everyone.
So, let’s dive in. Set out below, are seven lessons for organisational change, from the 2022 US mid-terms.
1. You cannot have change if you do not have choice
Heading into the mid-terms, it was clear that US voters were frustrated. However, it is equally clear that not enough of them believed that their desire for change was matched by the quality of available choices. Expecting pent up frustration to drive the discontented into the arms of another, without being certain that what you are offering is what they want, is fraught with risk. For organisations, the key message here is that: change does not exist in a vacuum. To make a compelling case for change, you need to offer a choice that is acceptable to those with the right to choose. Look at it this way: abandoning a burning boat may not be an option, if I fear being eaten by sharks, when I jump into the sea.
2. With change, message management matters
Both Democrats and Republicans will be raking over their respective campaigns to learn lessons. They will want to know what it was about their messaging that failed to resonate with voters and why they were unable to fully maximise the opportunities presented to them. As someone who watched the campaign quite closely, I was struck by the sheer negativity of it all. The arguments made by both parties owed more to the harm and damage that might be done by the other, than the merits of their own case. For as long as anyone can remember, fearmongering has been one of the most potent messaging tools for driving change. However, fear is predominately an emotion and not values driven response. As such, when change is driven by fear, it never lasts.
3. Wide-eyed fanaticism scares people
One of the more fascinating features of the 2022 mid-terms were the various candidates espousing views that were perceived as ‘extremist’. Clearly, there is nothing new about extremism in politics. However, for the 2022 midterms what had previously existed, largely on the political fringe, had slowly migrated to the populist mainstream. Notwithstanding, for the most part, the 2022 results delivered a broad repudiation of views and values deemed to be ‘extremist’. For organisations, there is a lesson here about the change journey, which is: if you look scary, smell offensive and sound aggressive, you are unlikely to find many travelling companions.
4. A strong tailwind is not always enough
In electoral terms, if there was ever a ‘slam-dunk’ for the party out of power, then the 2022 mid-terms should have been that. The party-political spin doctors, number crunchers and prognosticators all seemed to suggest that a ‘red wave’ would come ashore. However, when it arrived, the ‘wave’ was barely ankle deep. But how could that have happened? By themselves, the sheer accumulation of economic grievances should have generated enough propulsion to transform the political landscape. What went wrong? There is a critical lesson here for organisations about the psychological impact of events and how they can affect our perception of change. In particular, the hidden danger of taking things for granted and the risk of being lulled into a false sense of security.
5. Reading is meaningless unless you can interpret
The ‘science’ of voter preference has once again proved to be an inexact one. To a large extent, there appears to have been something of a disconnect between the intentions expressed by would-be voters during polling and the choices they made, in the polling booths. When people express preferences, they are telling you how they feel. However, when it comes to decision-making, preferences are weighted by practicalities. As a case in point, I may express support for the climate change agenda, but be unwilling to make the lifestyle choices that would bring my decision-making in line with my expressed preferences. Organisations need to be mindful that preference is often a matter for the heart. Decision-making, on the other hand, is a matter for the head.
6. People may not want ‘change’, but they may want ‘changes’
How many times do you think the verb ‘change’ was used during the 2022 mid-term campaign? Tens of thousands maybe? But did the electorate really want ‘change’ (universal) or ‘changes’ (targeted)? Let me give you an example: a customer goes into a shoe store and asks for a particular style of footwear. However, the shoe does not quite fit and the customer informs the store assistant. The logical response should be to offer the customer the next size up or down, not a completely different shoe. Here the key learning point for organisations is the need to be literate about change. With change, everyone thinks that everyone understands what everyone else means. However, often-times, no-one really knows what anyone else is talking about
7. Change is mostly about risk, but it is mainly about trust
Once you have quantified and enumerated the various risks, the actual determinant of change is always trust. When it comes to change, trust is to art, what risk is to science. With trust, the gold-standard is when people trust you even when they disagree with you. By contrast, risk demands action to avoid hazard and disaster. The 2022 mid-terms showed that the US electorate actively weighed up the risk of change and offered a decidedly more moderate and measured response. The fact that voters do not trust politicians is nothing new, but it does bear reminding that you cannot effect change without it. For organisations, the lesson here is that if you want your employees to trust you, then show your integrity. From integrity flows credibility, from credibility flows confidence and from confidence flows trust.
More than just an exercise in democracy, the 2022 US mid-terms offer insights and perspectives of value to organisations and entrepreneurs alike. Specifically, they highlight key lessons about the dynamics, characteristics and building blocks of change. Amongst others, they profile the importance of messaging, the need to avoid assumptions, the risk of extremes and the criticality of trust. These insights are neither radical nor particularly uncommon. However, when it comes to change, they are perhaps the most challenging of all insights because, so often, they are ‘hidden’ in plain sight.
