Zap!! Watch out for the force field...

The first thing that usually gets in the way of a change leader is the proverbial force field that surrounds them in all quarters. From fighting vested (old) interests that resist change, to the challenge of turning around prior policies and actions that were months or years in the making, to even getting the public's fickle attention (much less active support), the change leader has a range of obstacles that stand in the way of their best intentions.

In the case of long-standing political dynasties like that of the Alberta Progressive Conservatives, the challenge is made doubly-daunting by the fact that a good deal of the new premier's core support comes from outside the traditional ranks of the party. Although it speaks to the potential for new ideas and energy, it's also easy for traditional insiders to discount the results and challenge the perspective that the new leader actually has a mandate for change.

It's also easy to question the strength of the new leader's mandate on the basis of how representative the internal party process was of the broader provincial electorate. There were many memberships sold to new party members in the final days of the leadership race that undoubtedly played a role in the final outcome, but the numbers still speak to the fact that only some 72,500 party members made the choice of new premier on behalf of the province's more than 2.2 million eligible voters (based on 2008 statistics). Put in perspective, that's just over three one-hundredths of a percent of the electorate.

But this is something that any new leader faces, so it's more a matter of background noise unless the leader fails to make their mark early on. It's when there haven't been any substantial signs of change within the first 100 days that people really start to question things, and by then the momentum often has shifted from a situation where change is possible to one where any change faces an increasing amount of public inertia.

Hope, or hopelessness?

The United States is a good example of the challenges a change-centred leader faces. Flowing from Barack Obama's election in 2008, we saw an early surge of hope for a new type of America: one that had learned the lessons of foreign misadventure, and one that could continue to build economic prosperity in the face of looming world ecomomic storms and the threat of decline in the American public's standard of living.

On both counts, we've witnessed what's now being termed the "Obama syndrome", where the new president quickly was overwhelmed by circumstances that he couldn't readily control, and which offered little opportunity to "win" the change race. No matter how history ultimately sorts out all of the causes of President Obama's many foreign and domestic policy reversals, it's pretty clear that he didn't achieve what he and many of those who supported him wanted to achieve. Nearing the three year mark of his presidency, a gathering opposition can glibly say "We told you so!". For those who yearned for a new beginning, it's a situation of growing hopelessness that things can turn around in the near term.

But the Obama situation brings foward the important point that no one leader can turn around the situation if others don't actively participate in the change process.

Missed by many pundits and supporters alike is the important message that it's a common and unified effort from society itself that will bring about change: "What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world; duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task."

Without the public's commitment to carrying through with the change process, it doesn't happen on its own. The commitment to change can take several forms, ranging from tacit acceptance of the overall process to actively working on the ground to muster support and implement the necessary change actions on the ground. And that's where the real change actually happens: many times, political change is merely the enabler for other forms of more meaningful change across society.

Calling all change leaders...

From the Initiative's perspective, the core message when change opens a door of opportunity is to "jump on through with the whole team!" The window of opportunity for meaningful societal change often stays open for only a very short time, so the imperative is to take advantage of the opening while it lasts.

This is where our "Connect... Inspire... Accelerate..." operational program framework comes into play.

The first priority is to quickly connect those who support the change agenda and can help to make it happen. Hopefully much of that groundwork has been laid in advance, but where it hasn't there's still an opportunity to invite people to be part of the process. From there, it's important to give them a meaningful role in the change process, and to inspire them with the possibilities that could come from it. Finally, it's critical to establish and maintain — or even to accelerate — the actual momentum of change.

Change is something of a rough and tumble team sport like football, rugby, or soccer... fancy footwork matters for little unless you can keep moving the ball down the field, and you have the team with you to carry it forward against opposition attempts to block it. The faster you do it, and with the most public mass possible, the more likely you'll reach the objective.