Changing Mindsets
Our series on Ownership-based Change continues with this sixth in the series article.
Image by SHVETS Productions on Pexels.com
Read time ~6 min.
At the end of the fifth blog in this series, Beliefs and Mindsets (February 7, 2024), we were reminded of an important reality. Brownstein and Dapra wrote “mindsets are not fixed—they are malleable and can be changed.”
Okay…but how do mindsets change?
One part of the answer is found in a process that occurs between the formation of a belief and the emergence of a mindset. The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) have a term for this process. It is known as “seasoning.” Those with more than a passing familiarity with Quakerism will have heard this term before. It means, in part, according to one glossary of Quaker terminology, “a process of waiting…before committing to a decision.”
In the previous blog we also noted that Brownstein and Dapra wrote:
Beliefs are called mindsets when they filter how we make sense of the world and ourselves. Mindsets act on our choice of goals and goal-pursuit behaviors, which significantly affect our lives.
Seasoning is the process by which beliefs become mindsets which, in turn, help us with sensemaking. Lifting this idea of “seasoning” out of its religious context, we recognize it as a key element of “sensemaking,” which is an important capacity when doing change work.
Consider this example (again from the Quakers). A Quaker Meeting was experiencing considerable growth and one of its primary buildings, a historic community house for events and religious education, was running out of space. Members of the Meeting came to believe the historic building needed to be restored and expanded to accommodate more people. A committee was formed to look into restoring and remodeling the building for more education and meeting space. They found the price tag for the work was several million dollars, which seemed well beyond the means of the congregation. However, the need was great, and it was found that the building was deteriorating more rapidly than originally thought. Over the next few months, which bled into two or three years, the Meeting reflected on what it believed and knew about the building. The congregation waited, talked, listened, and “seasoned” proposals for moving forward. Because Quakers use a consensus decision making process, it took a while for a common mindset to emerge – a decision to move forward. When the mindset was clear, though, the remodeling and restoration project was completed on schedule. Even more, the debt was retired many years before the end of the mortgage. Today members and attenders of the Meeting are enjoying the new facilities and seeing continued growth.
Their common belief translated into a common mindset. As they seasoned all of this together, it came to make sense that they needed to move forward. Their unity and commitment to action meant the work would be completed on time and the debt paid many years before the mortgage came due at the bank.
Sensemaking is an internal reflective process by which people (as individuals or a collective) continuously monitor and interpret the environment in which they live and work to create solutions to the problems they face (Antes & Mumford, 2012; M. D. Mumford, Friedrich, Caughron, & Byrne, 2010). By reflecting and seasoning, they can see more clearly the issues they face. It also helps them discover solutions that are genuine and durable.
Sensemaking is about seeing more clearly, understanding more thoroughly, and thoughtfully implementing the necessary actions and responses.
When we do sensemaking it means that both a description of the situation and a prescription for the situation emerge (M. D. Mumford, Antes, Caughron, & Friedrich, 2008). The description of it is our best understanding, at the moment, of it. The prescription for it is our best attempt, at the moment, to address it.
Over the years that we’ve tried to draw attention to “buy-in” vs. Ownership-based Change, we’ve seen that people initially “get it” quickly. Many have indicated to us that they can clearly see the difference between the two. They may also see how “buy-in” based change has damaged some organizations, communities, and even initiatives. They come to embrace the description of the situation.
The prescription, though, is another thing. Simply understanding and embracing the concept of Ownership-based Change doesn’t change how some people and groups go about their change work. They might stop using the term “buy-in” but they quickly “snapback” to the concept when they run up against the challenges of creating Ownership-based Change.
The process of changing mindsets is straightforward. It includes embracing a new description of what is happening as well as a new prescription for how to address it. However, once we have the prescription in hand, it will not do us any good until we commit to following it tenaciously. Similarly, to embrace the description of Ownership-based Change and move from a “buy-in” mindset is possible. However, we still have to accept the prescription, commit to Ownership-based Change, and stick with it.
We know it isn’t easy though. It took us a while. Why? For all the reasons listed in this earlier blog, “Why the “Buy-in” Mindset Persists.” We found that some “if/then” reflections can help with the seasoning and sensemaking that leads to a mindset change and a commitment to following the prescription of Ownership-based Change. For example:
If people are asked to “buy-in to change,” then who is actually responsible for the change? The people who “bought in” or the people who “sold” the change?
If people “own the change,” then how does that look different from if they simply “buy-in” to the change?
If people “buy-in” to the change, then what happens when the promised change doesn’t happen or isn’t what they expected?
If people actually “own the change,” then who are the real decision makers or, then who should be the real decision makers?
These are only a handful of the questions that we’ve wrestled with. The distinctions between “buy-in” change and Ownership-based Change are clearest in the answers to these and other questions. Next week, we turn to those distinctions.
References:
Antes, A. L. & Mumford, M. D. (2012). Strategies for leader cognition: Viewing the glass "half full" and "half empty." The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 425-442. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.10.001
Mumford, M. D., Antes, A. L., Caughron, J. J., & Friedrich, T. L. (2008). Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership: Multi-level influences on emergence and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 144-160. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.002
Mumford, M. D., Friedrich, T. L., Caughron, J. J., & Byrne, C. L. (2010). Leader cognition in real-world settings: How do leaders think about crises? The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 515-543. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.002
Meet Ed Shrager, Charity Culture Catalyst from London. Now playing - Getting to Third Space.
Watch the podcast now on the Tenacious Change YouTube Channel or listen on Spotify. You can also find us on other popular podcast platforms.
Be sure to subscribe to Change It Up! and be among the first to know when new episodes are available.
To learn more about our work with communities, organizations, and groups, visit us at our company website at www.tenaciouschange.us by clicking on the image below:
To schedule a 30-minute chat to meet us and learn more about Tenacious Change, click on Calendly logo: