Read Time: ~8 min.
Image by Mylene on Pixabay
This is the third in a series on Ownership-based Change.
Last week we described and illustrated how the “buy-in” mindset held by many funders, leaders, and other Content Experts damages durable change efforts. We shared our belief that flawed perceptions of leadership and a flawed theory of “best practices” have contributed to the preference of “buy-in” based-change over Ownership-based Change, or similar approaches. In this post, we want to wrap, for now, our discussion of “buy-in” based change.
We will do this by going a bit deeper to understand the question:
“Why have individuals and groups working in the arenas of organizational and community change preferred to stick with a ‘buy-in’ approach, even when they can see, as we have, the damage it can do?”
Theses and dissertations are often designed to answer variations on the question, “Why?” In fact, a dissertation could be written to answer this question as well. Do not fear. What follows is not a dissertation, but simply observations and opinions. However, they are informed observations and opinions, grounded in participatory action research (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2005, p. 559-603) we have undertaken with clients and partners for at least 30 years.
Here we offer five reasons for why we believe “buy-in” based change persists despite the damage it does. (Are there others we’ve missed? If so, send us a comment. We’d love to hear your thoughts.)
It is easier. Change is never easy. However, the manner in which it is approached makes a difference. “Buy-in” based change often starts at the top of a hierarchy. Therefore, it can be as simple as a decision made at the top that is then passed down to everyone below. “The top” can be one person or a group of people, such as a board, executive team, or steering committee. The “buy-in” mindset means the change decisions are made by a limited number of people (Content Experts) with minimal input from those that are most impacted by the change (Context Experts). Just for appearance sake, the Content Experts may “involve” some Context Experts by getting some “token” feedback on the decision before it is announced or “decorating” the rollout by inviting some Context Experts to be up front at the announcement. Even if they have to go through these extra steps to give the appearance of participation by Context Experts, it is still easier to simply “manipulate” people with a “buy-in” approach than to create paths for genuine participation by Context Experts. (To more fully understand the use of the bold words in quotes, read about Hart’s Ladder of Children’s Participation and the earlier work of Shelly Arnstein on citizen participation that informed it.)
It is quicker. This is related to being easier, of course. Part of something being easier often means it can also be done in less time. That is also true of “buy-in” based change. If all you have to do is get people to “buy-in” to your ideas and plans, then it should take less time especially if you hold all the funding and the power and are good at sweet talk. The people closest to the issue being addressed (Context Experts) may be most eager for something to change, even if the change being proposed by the Content Experts is not exactly what they want or need. We’ve seen Context Experts often “go along, to get along” in the hopes of getting something from the deal they can use. This usually ends for them in disappointment, broken trust, and shattered hope. Still, believing they “might” get something they really need makes it easier for them to get aboard quickly
It is cleaner. Change can be messy and real change can be the messiest of all. Usually, getting “buy-in” is cleaner because it is easier and quicker. This is especially true if power and wealth can be leveraged to get compliance at all levels of the organization or community. Collaboration is always messier than compliance. Occasionally, though, there can be rebellions among the Context Experts. They may organize and push back against the Content Experts. This is why having lots of wealth and power is useful for the Content Experts. It can be used to quell an uprising.
It is cheaper. Not only is collaboration messier, but it is also more expensive. This is true in terms of both time and money. Genuine collaboration on change requires participation by both Content Experts and Context Experts. It is usually easier to bring together Content Experts because they know about professional meetings, technology, and planning and are accustomed to these in their daily work lives. This may not be true for Context Experts which means extra effort needs to go into engaging them. This may mean extra meetings, meetings at times that professionals do not typically meet, and more time and resources spent on building relationships. Really, it is less expensive to decide at the top, push it down to the Context Experts, and expect “buy-in” compliance – well, unless it sparks a rebellion.
It protects interests (and power) at the top. The dirtiest little secret reason “buy-in” persists is because it allows the people at the top to protect their interests and retain control. Ownership-based Change is different because the power to decide and act is shared between and among Context Experts and Content Experts. Content Experts need to put aside their interests and be willing to lay down the power they have traditionally had. Context Experts need to be willing to put forward their interests and pick up the power. Let’s be honest. It can be scary for both groups. Context Experts may be reluctant to pick up the power because they have not had it before. They may worry that they will not use it well or fail. They may also worry that their access is only on the whim of Content Experts and, therefore, temporary. Content Experts may be reluctant to lay aside their interests for fear they will lose position, wealth, status, or other benefits they have come to enjoy. They may fear laying down power because they have grown accustomed to having it. Also, they may believe they have been wielding that power for the greater good.
Okay, some readers may be thinking right now, “Yep! That all sounds right! And that’s why we like “buy-in!” Are they considering, though, that these five reasons, if taken so positively, are also Machiavellian? There’s a good reason: A “buy-in” mindset can be Machiavellian because it operates under the premise, “the end justifies the means.” Those same readers may pushback with, “Hey, if we do good for others in a way that is easier, quicker, cleaner, cheaper, AND it allows us to protect our interests and retain power, isn’t that a GOOD thing?”
Well…no.
No matter how important, right, or good for others you believe something is, using “buy-in” usurps autonomy, voice, and power that should rightly reside with the people most impacted by it.
Ownership-based change is an alternative mindset. It doesn’t exclude either Content Experts or Context Experts. Instead, it focuses on bringing everyone together to envision and plan for the desired change. Then, it helps everyone together to move toward the change. More next week.
WATCH OR LISTEN TO part 2 of Lamar & Tom’s Conversation with Seth Kaplan
Seth is the author of a new book, “Fragile Neighborhoods: Repairing American Society, One Zip Code at a Time.” Watch the podcast now on the Tenacious Change YouTube Channel or listen here now.
In “Fragile Neighborhoods” he focuses on how neighborhoods throughout the U.S. have become more fragile and what can be done to strengthen them and make them more resilient. As we enter a new year in which we may find community and neighborhood bonds tested like never before, this is a timely and important conversation. In this podcast Lamar & Tom will talk with Seth about his book and how civil conversation and dialogue contribute to strengthening neighborhoods, communities, and countries.
Be sure to subscribe to Change It Up! and be among the first to know when new episodes are available.
We’ve moved to substack!
Our move to Substack is complete. You can, of course, continue to read Change It Up! with Tenacious Change here. Remember, subscribing, either here or on Substack is easy. We appreciate you being here!
2 Replies to “Why the “Buy-in” Mindset Persists”