It is a common theme to hear from coaches that change isn’t good or bad; your mindset makes it what it is. These coaches then teach you to change your mindset to take advantage of any disruption as a new opportunity.
I understand why this approach is appealing: people want to feel good, and coaches usually work with individuals and, as a result, limit their approach to something that can help the individual work through a challenge.
Even when the issues are individual issues, this approach to change can cause people to lose sight of what really matters to them and force them to go along with the change where a more complex response is required. Unfortunately, many of the problems we face and many of the changes impacting us are not individual issues, and this approach cannot deal with a more complex reality.
I will use this newsletter to break down a recent LinkedIn post from a coach focused on helping people be happier at work and try to show how this prevalent ideology is actually causing more harm than good.
Change is not good or bad on its own
At a high level, this is true. Change as a concept is not good or bad. However, we are never facing conceptual change. We are always facing specific, particular changes, and those changes are embedded within a certain context. While change itself may not be good or bad, a specific change will likely be good for some people and bad for others within that context.
When we consider whether a specific change is good or bad, we must consider it from the perspective of a range of different individuals in different situations with different histories and needs.
The other piece of context that statements like this rely on is the idea that whether anything is good or bad depends on what comes from it. Is the eventual outcome good or bad?
I am reminded of the Buddhist story of the farmer whose horse runs away. The townspeople say that is bad luck, but when the horse returns with two more wild horses, they say it is good luck. When the farmer’s son breaks his leg trying to tame the wild horse, it is seen as bad luck, but when that broken leg saves the son from being drafted into the military, it is seen as good luck. The moral is that because we don’t know what will happen next, it is impossible to tell if an event will eventually yield a positive or a negative outcome.
There are some crucial differences between what this is proposing and the modern idea that you can make a change become positive or negative based on how you think about it. First, the concept of the story is to treat things with equanimity, to recognize accepting the good and bad are parts of life, and not to cling too much to particular outcomes. This doesn’t try to change a bad thing into a good thing but to recognize that life is unpredictable. In the modern view, it is not a matter of treating things with equanimity but rather trying to transform bad into good. And refusing to recognize that change does negatively impact people in some ways.
One thing decides how you experience change: Your mindset.
This statement gets to the heart of what is at stake ideologically in this perspective. The idea is that we can make something good or bad by changing our mindset.
Before critically analyzing this idea, let me give a rather extreme example of a change from my life to show how empty and hollow this can sound. More than 15 years ago, my first wife passed away. It was a horrible experience. Now, all these years later, I am happily remarried and have two beautiful children.
Is there any world in which anyone telling me 15 years ago, “Her death was neither good nor bad, but you should approach it as an opportunity and see it as a potentially good thing,” would be anything other than a cold and heartless statement?
The underlying assumption of this idea is that if we were to fast-forward to some future point where the result of this bad thing has actually been positive, we would then look at this situation and describe it as good. From this hypothetical positive future, we would then look back and even choose this “bad” thing, knowing the result. While there are certain cases where this might be true (for example, getting fired from a job you didn’t like, which leads to you getting your dream job), there are also cases where even asking the question feels wrong, like the situation I described above.
Yes, good things can come from bad things, but that doesn’t change the nature of what happened and make it positive. We must deal with the fact that some change is bad and that a mindset change won’t make it good. Evolving through the change while seeing it clearly is required.
However, the problems with this idea go even deeper than this.
Individuals in Isolation
The idea that how we approach change is something that we can change based on our mindset looks at the change solely from the individual’s perspective. It doesn’t acknowledge that all change has a social component. It isn’t solely the individual who experiences the change. It is a collective. Similarly, your mindset is not exclusively individual either. How you relate to the world is largely socially constructed, and as such, a change in mindset will often also need to be approached from a social perspective as well. (For more information on this idea, see the previous newsletter on transindividuality.)
Those who push this perspective may claim that everyone in the collective could respond this way. This is a way that the collective is then reduced to a collection of individuals, but following this line of thinking, the challenge becomes clear. When people seek to turn the change into an opportunity, they cease to think about the collective good and solely think about the individual opportunity. What is also missing is that not all individuals will be equally impacted by the change, and it doesn’t allow those most impacted to have the support of the collective.
Interpassivity
One of the other challenges of this approach is that it creates the illusion of taking action. It looks as though an unwelcome change has come, and In fact, this approach doesn’t look at the nature of the change at all and only at the individual reaction to it. The change is taken for granted; it is accepted to be what it is, and no real action against it is allowed.
Žižek calls this interpassivity, or the idea that we can allow something else to act on our behalf. An example he cites is the Tibetan Prayer Wheel, whereby spinning the wheel is as if a prayer is recited.1 In this case, changing our mindsets makes it seem as if we are doing something about the change, but we really aren’t. We are only changing how we relate to it. While this may have some impact on how we emotionally deal with the change (more on that later), it doesn’t do anything about the material impact of the actual change or any of the other people who may be suffering due to it.
Responsibilization
Finally, this approach puts pressure on the individual. It makes the individual responsible for the suffering that the change causes them and takes the blame away from those responsible. This is a common pattern in what Byung-Chul Han calls achievement society.
People who fail in the neoliberal achievement-society see themselves as responsible for their lot and feel shame instead of questioning society or the system. 2
This perspective pressures the individual to continuously self-improve, and while it promises to create less stress and more freedom, it can often do the opposite. Any failure to see a change positively can’t be seen as a systemic issue or a legitimate structural issue; from this perspective, it is an individual failing of mindset.
If you look for ways this change could negatively impact you, you will feel stressed. If you look for ways this change opens up new possibilities, you will feel excited.
This point accentuates the challenge discussed as part of the responsibilization above. It makes an individual responsible for how they feel rather than seeing that how they feel is related to the change that has occurred.
This idea assumes that we can change how we feel about something that happened. While I won’t have space here to do a deep dive into the literature of emotions, affects, and feelings, it is important to note that we can change how we respond to what we are feeling, but it is impossible to change what we are feeling consciously.
A second concerning part of this passage is the implication that some emotions (like stress) are bad and should be avoided, while other emotions (like excitement) are good and should be sought out. This again puts pressure on the individual to feel only “good” things and misses out on seeing the value that these “negative” emotions provide. Negative emotions are disruptive, which is a good thing; they force us to think differently and pursue change.
A final aspect of this that bears mentioning is the focus on what you look for. This is a quintessential example of an ideological framing. And there is some truth: you can create a frame through which you see only the positive of a given change. The challenge of such a framing is, of course, what is left out of the frame, what are you ignoring to see things as you are. By ignoring the source of the change and only looking at the opportunity, it is creating an ideological construct. That decreases the ability to see things clearly, resulting in a willingness to accept the status quo.
You have the greatest power always accessible to you: The power to choose your mindset about change.
Herein lies the biggest paradox of this line of thinking: the idea that the power to choose your mindset is real power when it is actually giving up the power that you have.
This doesn’t acknowledge that people have the power to counteract and fight against changes they disagree with. They don’t need to go along with them and find the opportunity that those changes create. While this masquerades as power it is really a clear example of what Mark Fisher has described as “reflexive impotence.” Here, he describes it in talking about why people aren’t using their voices more to speak up about inequalities, and it fits in with the perspective on dealing with change we are talking about here.
But this, I want to argue, is a matter not of apathy, nor of cynicism, but of reflexive impotence. They know things are bad, but more than that, they know they can’t do anything about it. But that ‘knowledge’, that reflexivity, is not a passive observation of an already existing state of affairs. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. 3
So, rather than trying to struggle against a change, this approach is to accept it and try to use it for personal advantage.
While we think this makes us free (we are free to choose our mindset), in reality, we lose the freedom we desire through this coercive push to approach change positively.
we find ourselves in a paradoxical situation. Technically, freedom means the opposite of coercion and compulsion. Being free means being free from constraint. But now freedom itself, which is supposed to be the opposite of constraint, is producing coercion.4
You will always find what you are looking for. So, choose to look for new possibilities instead of obstacles. When you do this, you will thrive through change instead of struggling through it.
The concluding words of the post wrap up our themes quite nicely. This phrase encapsulates the magical thinking that is often at work in positive psychology movements. If you want something bad enough, you will receive it. This leads to the opposite, usually unspoken reality: if things aren’t working out, you must not have wanted it strongly enough.
This assumes a magical volunteerism that by looking for something, you will necessarily find it. This term comes from David Smail, but I was introduced to it by Mark Fisher, who describes it like this:
‘magical voluntarism’ – the belief that it is within every individual’s power to make themselves whatever they want to be – is the dominant ideology and unofficial religion of contemporary capitalist society, pushed by reality TV ‘experts’ and business gurus as much as by politicians. 5
As the quote suggests, the idea is ubiquitous.
Certainly, trying to find the possibilities and options in any situation, no matter how difficult, is laudable and even necessary. However, it ignores the fact that obstacles exist. If you are going to transform a difficult situation or drive for real change, you need to be able to see both the obstacles and the possibilities clearly. This includes understanding the historical, social, and contextual implications. And doing so requires far more engagement than changing your mindset.
And finally, I agree that the end result is to help people thrive; however, thriving often comes through struggle. And the struggle itself can have real value. A just struggle for an ethical commitment is more valuable than thriving in an unethical way. While I would never wish struggle upon anyone, looking at someone who is struggling with a change and saying you should choose to see it differently and thrive instead, feels like an approach that lacks empathy.
What this means for middle managers.
All of this isn’t to say that you can’t use a change to make improvements. In fact, there is great potential in any time of change or disruption for a collective to use that change as an opportunity to shift things to improve things for everyone. However, this doesn’t happen due to individuals changing their mindsets; it happens by coming together and talking about the change, understanding how people are impacted, and collectively deciding a path forward. These skills are lacking today, and they are needed more than ever.
As managers and coaches, we can do more. We can recognize that merely helping people feel better, accept changes, and find their own personal opportunities may have long-term adverse outcomes. We can see the potential to help ensure the changes move us toward greater equality and power for self-determination for everyone involved.
The steps below are not exhaustive but offer an alternative approach and avoid many of the mindset approach’s pitfalls.
- Recognize that change is hard and that not all change is a positive outcome for everyone on your team. Some may see a change as positive, while others will see it as harmful. Listen empathetically to what aspects of change people are struggling with, and share what you see as both the positive and negative aspects of the change.
- Work with the team (or individual) to understand the change’s social and contextual implications, including the potentially uneven distribution of benefits and harms. Then, discuss how their reactions and responses to the change may relate to their own context.
- Map out what the change makes more possible for the team (or individual) in relation to their goals and what obstacles it introduces. In what ways does it make certain activities easier or harder?
- Recognize what can be done as a group to push back on changes that have created obstacles or harm and create a plan to work collectively to strategically push back on changes based on what is possible, reasonable, and within the tolerances of acceptable risk.
- Slavoj Žižek, Plague of Fantasies ↩
- Byung-Chul Han, Psychopolitics ↩
- Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism ↩
- Byung-Chul Han, Psychopolitics ↩
- Mark Fisher, Good For Nothing https://theoccupiedtimes.org/?p=12841 ↩