Who Bears the Burden of Change?

Who bears the burden of change? Different people will have different answers to this question. Some will say that it is the government’s job, and others will say that it is the responsibility of “big business” to bring about change. I propose that change cannot occur unless it falls on an individual level.

In counseling and psychology, we learn about how people change.

There are five stages of change, but change in the target behavior really only happens in one stage. The work of Norcross, Krebs, and Prochaska (2011), clearly defines these stages. The first stage is called precontemplation. It is in this stage that the client cannot even see that there is a problem, so they are not even in the mindset to consider changing themselves. They come to counseling because someone else (spouse, friends, employer, etc.) is the problem. Second, comes the contemplation stage. It is in contemplation that the client recognizes that they are at least part of their problem, and they begin to think about changing sometime in the future. The contemplator is not yet committed to change. The third stage, preparation, is when the client is planning out how they will change. The fourth stage is where the change occurs, which is the action stage. This stage requires the most work and energy, because this is when the plan goes into place. The fifth and final stage is called maintenance. Maintenance is required for every change, because otherwise the old habits will come back. These are called stages for a reason, though. The first stage will happen first, then the second, then the third, and so on. They will not happen out of order. The person has to first realize that there is a problem, then they have to desire to solve the problem. Without both of those elements first, there can be no change.

Perhaps this is why there is so much difficulty within politics to bring any kind of reform to either side of the pendulum. What one party sees as a problem, is not a problem for the other side. What one side provides as a solution, the other side sees as an attack on their freedom. Very rarely do we see two sides agreeing that there is a problem, or that they may be a contributing factor to the problem. Since people are the participants in political parties, that brings the conversation to an individual level. Lobbyists know that they have to present a reasonable argument to the legislators in order to get them to support their cause. Someone has to recognize a problem, and rationally (hopefully ethically) produce evidence strong enough to convince others of the problem. One of my professors this past semester told a story of how a group was formed that had very different stances on an issue, but they all realized that what they approached was a problem. This group worked and worked and came to a decision that no one was happy with, but it was at least a step in the right direction of solving the problem. His recounting of the experience was so powerful, because it emphasized that positive change could occur in the face of disagreement. He admitted that there is still a long road ahead for the issue, but the journey has at least begun.

Some of the most beloved citizens are ones who brightened their corner of the earth with the time they were given. They may not have had the most glamourous homes or drove the fanciest cars, but when they died, it was clear that there was a hole in the community. They were people of influence, because those around them saw that they cared. They showed they cared by seeing something that they could do to better their communities. They looked around, noticed something amiss, and decided to do something about it. Gandhi is noted for saying, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” He did not say, “Someone else will change the world, so live your hakuna matata.” Instead, Gandhi was emphasizing the individual responsibility we have to ourselves and surroundings.

My husband @Lydon.sipe and I recently listened to Simon Sinek’s talk on “Millennials in the Workplace,” and what struck me the most from Mr. Sinek's talk, was the way he proposed that we fix the problems he sees Millennials are having. He proposed that it is the responsibility of corporations and employers to teach skills on how to build relationships, and that they should provide a place for Millennials to do the catch-up character building that he claims they were deprived of growing up. I can agree with his statement, but only to an extent. As far as I am concerned, at a minimum level the employer is responsible to provide a safe working environment, clear performance expectations, and access to the tools and resources necessary for the employee to complete their task. These tools would include internet to do research or send emails, a printer and printing paper, and other basic office supplies. The normal resources for the task at hand. I would not expect an employer to set up every interview for every freelancer, or whomever is working for them. Yes, a quality employer will care about the growth of their employees. However, a quality employer will also empower their employees to make decisions on their own. A quality employer will want their employees to earn their success, not get it on the apron strings of the often-faceless corporate management. I believe the key here is to help employees catch the vision of their leaders. If the employees catch the vision, they will be more intrinsically motivated to do whatever it takes to see the success of the company continue. All the self-help seminars in the world will not be effective in changing a generation, unless the generation decides on an individual level that they want to be different than they are now.

---

References
Atlas Picture
Hakuna Matata Image
Simon Sinek Millennials In the Workplace
Gandhi Quote
Norcross Krebs and Prochaska