What is the difference between Change and Transformation? Have we simply burdened one with our projections of negativity vs. gifting the other our dreams and aspirations of development? At their core, aren’t both about creating something new, different, better?
Transformation. Change. Is there a difference?
I consistently coach leaders and organizations who embrace and strive for the concept of transformation of their leaders, teams, systems, and infrastructure, to the point that they name development programs and corporate initiatives as “transformational.” This label immediately assigns whatever the associated program is with an air of positivity, innovation, and aspirations.
Conversely, when an organization is undergoing a massive reorganization, merger, technology platform rollout, companies mobilize what are referred to as “change management” resources, teams, training and communications. As someone who used to lead these efforts for large companies, I can share these efforts were often met with skepticism, eyerolls, and labels such as “change fatigue.” Change, in my experience, got a pretty bad rap.
In short, everyone seems to aspire to transformation. Yet very few crave or strive for change. Why is that?
Again, I ask the question, what is the difference between Transformation and Change? Why do we seek to achieve one, but not the other to the point of avoidance? Is this simply a matter of linguistics? That words, and the way we use (or over/under use) them, truly matter?
Have we projected our hopes, dreams, fears, concerns on to these two related words to create an emotional divide? When it’s an aspiration we call it transformative, but when it’s a move to making something different or uncomfortable it becomes “change”? It’s interesting, because in my experience, I have yet to encounter a change that, at its core, is intended to make something worse. Different, yes. But always with the desire, the goal, for improvement.
Why not call efforts what they truly are?
I have a dear friend who has never hesitated to call me out for, what he refers to as, “putting lipstick on a pig” when I attempt to create an inspirational name for change related programs. He will laugh and tell me, “Lynn, everyone sees the pig. And they see you holding the lipstick. Why don’t you just let the pig be a pig, and celebrate it? Show everyone else how awesome the pig really is?” He is, of course, spot on correct. (By the way, I think pigs really are pretty darn awesome.)
My point is this. When we title a development program as “transformational leadership” what does that really mean? What is the goal? Are we channeling Marvel-comics and transforming someone from Dr. Bruce Banner into The Hulk? Or, is the intent more subtle? Could it be a shift from hierarchical management towards a collaborative management style? Or self-directed leadership? If so, why not simply give it the appropriate title, which provides clarity, direction, and strategy?
When a change is just exactly that – a change, how can the messaging convey that while change might be uncomfortable for a period of time, it is intended to improve whatever system is being changed. Is there an opportunity to reexamine what is bringing up the feelings of negativity? More often than not, the change is merely a presenting symptom of deeper discontent. Think about how potentially rich that conversation could be, when you make the effort to get to the source.
Words DO matter, and how we use – or misuse – them gives them power. So, the next time you find yourself shying away from calling something what it really is, ask yourself, “What’s stopping me from embracing the pig?”
