have also a problem. Unless you are a minority that still resists...

The same counts for the vision. Without one, you shouldn't start a change. Showing a vision before there are any real problems is also dangerous. And then, somewhere along the line, the first step will be sketched, where people will continue to believe, along this (time) line, that it (the step)

The mathematical language is a very powerful language. First of all because all those who have learned to use the language will understand each other. Whereas a normal language is prone to all kind of misunderstandings.

A mathematical language is unambiguous.

Gleicher, Beckhard & Harris have found an equation that shows the relation to overcome resistance to change; The formula is modelled in the following way:

D x V x F > R

Or,

Dissatisfaction x Vision x First Steps > Resistance (to change).

The Dissatisfaction parameter covers the dissatisfaction of the current situation. This means that this dissatisfaction feeds the urge to change. But on itself it is not enough. In order to change you need to know where you are going. "I have no idea," is just not enough. In fact you should any idea. But even that on itself or together with the dissatisfaction with the current situation will not provoke a change. A change starts with a step. A first step that is pointing into the right direction (offered by the vision) and a step that is normal enough to start with.

The formula speaks for itself. Yet, there is also a kind of sequence in the formula which you can only explain in common language.

There will never be a first step without a situation that is not wanted (D). If you turn it around you would argue that if there is action (in favor of a change) but people are still questioning, "what it wrong with what we have now," you have also a problem. Unless you are a minority that still resists...

The same counts for the vision. Without one, you shouldn't start a change. Showing a vision before there are any real problems is also dangerous. And then, somewhere along the line, the first step will be sketched, where people will continue to believe, along this (time) line, that it (the step) c

change; The formula is modelled in the following way:

D x V x F > R

Or,

Dissatisfaction x Vision x First Steps > Resistance (to change).

The Dissatisfaction parameter covers the dissatisfaction of the current situation. This means that this dissatisfaction feeds the urge to change. But on itself it is not enough. In order to change you need to know where you are going. "I have no idea," is just not enough. In fact you should any idea. But even that on itself or together with the dissatisfaction with the current situation will not provoke a change. A change starts with a step. A first step that is pointing into the right direction (offered by the vision) and a step that is normal enough to start with.

The formula speaks for itself. Yet, there is also a kind of sequence in the formula which you can only explain in common language.

There will never be a first step without a situation that is not wanted (D). If you turn it around you would argue that if there is action (in favor of a change) but people are still questioning, "what it wrong with what we have now," you have also a problem. Unless you are a minority that still resists...

The same counts for the vision. Without one, you shouldn't start a change. Showing a vision before there are any real problems is also dangerous. And then, somewhere along the line, the first step will be sketched, where people will continue to believe, along this (time) line, that it (the step)

now where you are going. "I have no idea," is just not enough. In fact you should any idea. But even that on itself or together with the dissatisfaction with the current situation will not provoke a change. A change starts with a step. A first step that is pointing into the right direction (offered by the vision) and a step that is normal enough to start with.

The formula speaks for itself. Yet, there is also a kind of sequence in the formula which you can only explain in common language.

There will never be a first step without a situation that is not wanted (D). If you turn it around you would argue that if there is action (in favor of a change) but people are still questioning, "what it wrong with what we have now," you have also a problem. Unless you are a minority that still resists...

The same counts for the vision. Without one, you shouldn't start a change. Showing a vision before there are any real problems is also dangerous. And then, somewhere along the line, the first step will be sketched, where people will continue to believe, along this (time) line, that it (the step)

formula speaks for itself. Yet, there is also a kind of sequence in the formula which you can only explain in common language.

There will never be a first step without a situation that is not wanted (D). If you turn it around you would argue that if there is action (in favor of a change) but people are still questioning, "what it wrong with what we have now," you have also a problem. Unless you are a minority that still resists...

The same counts for the vision. Without one, you shouldn't start a change. Showing a vision before there are any real problems is also dangerous. And then, somewhere along the line, the first step will be sketched, where people will continue to believe, along this (time) line, that it (the step)

have also a problem. Unless you are a minority that still resists...

The same counts for the vision. Without one, you shouldn't start a change. Showing a vision before there are any real problems is also dangerous. And then, somewhere along the line, the first step will be sketched, where people will continue to believe, along this (time) line, that it (the step) could very well be the one that is needed, and agreed by the majority.

And that's how you will get things changed.

© 2006 Hans Bool