If actions speak louder than words . . . what do yours say?

There are many reasons put forward to explain why change is so hard to initiate and so difficult to implement. Perhaps an exploration of what has been proposed as the 1/9/90 Law for blogging can throw more light on the phenomenon.

Earlier this week, I came across a mention of a supposed "law" of blogging: the 1/9/90 Law [link] . This states that of every 100 people, just one will write a blog and create content, putting forward their ideas and starting a dialog. Another nine will post comments on that blog and thus contribute to the dialog by sharing their responses to the original idea. They enrich the content created. The other 90 will read the bog . . . and do nothing else. They simply consume the content.

I have no idea whether any of this is true, but it seems plausible. If I contrast the number of people who are recorded as looking at this blog with the number who leave comments, a ratio of 9:1 seems overly generous. My own guess would be that far fewer than 9% of readers ever post any kind of comment.

However, this post is not about blogging, and my reason for mentioning the 1/9/90 Law is that it seems to me to apply really well to the topic of people's reactions to change and whatever serves as the prevailing culture and established norms in their place of work.

Maybe just one in 100 people will come up with ideas for change and decide to try to see them implemented. That one person is very likely to make him or herself unpopular as a result; perhaps even to the extent of being fired. It takes a great deal of courage to challenge the prevailing corporate culture (some would use the term foolhardiness instead) and to do so openly.

However, it does happen and there is usually a response. Maybe between 5% and 9% of people will respond by taking up the idea and looking to see if it has any merit. They will discuss it and add to it, maybe alter it somewhat, and exhibit at least some willingness to see it turned into action. If the one person who started the process is the creator, the catalyst for change, these folk are the polishers, enrichers and implementors.

Of course, if the initial idea is a bad one, they'll likely choose to leave it alone. And if the response from on high is unusually ferocious and negative, they'll probably put self-preservation above any interest the idea aroused in them. After all, it wasn't their idea. They just thought it might have something in it, and were looking to see what that something might be and how it might be made to work.

Inertia rules?

The remaining 90% will almost certainly do nothing, and outwardly register little or no interest either. Is that simply inertia or apathy? Are most people immune to curiosity; or totally unconcerned with things that might make their working lives better?

I don't think so. Some may be, but this seems to me to be an unduly negative view of the human condition. What I think is happening in that vast majority of people (be it 90% or some other number) is far more complex. Understanding it may point to why change—even beneficial change—can seem to slow to emerge and so easy to squash.

Most people accept the status quo, even if they don't like it much, because:

• They have been led to believe that there is no other viable way.


• They fear that being seen to be on the side of change will harm their career. Those in charge will consider them lacking in commitment, disloyal, or disaffected.


• They have become cynical and disillusioned. They've seen so many previous attempts at change fail and noted how the instigators have been treated.

What do your actions say about you?

This brings me back to the headline of this article. If you're the one person who constantly instigates change, your actions speak of your courage (or foolhardiness), your creativity, your willingness to stand up for what you believe—and possibly your long history of being forced to change jobs and accept loss of prospects. If you're typically one of the nine or so percent of polishers and enrichers of other people's ideas, your actions likely speak about your curiosity, your ability to take an initial idea and work to improve it, your willingness to discuss many options, and your openness to change as a continual possibility. They also probably suggest that you have a better sense of self-preservation that the one percent who constantly go out on a limb.

For the rest, lack of action may be due to need (I can't afford to risk this job for anything), or satisfaction with the way things are (This works for me and I don't want it changed). But your inaction may just as easily suggest fear, cynicism, disillusionment, and a sense that the future offers few alternatives.

Which of these is right—if any of them are—only you can say. I'm not going to make any sweeping generalizations or label anyone. But I do think you might want to take a little while to think about the picture I have painted. Even if it has only some partial truth in it, it may help you reflect on what does seem to be a fairly general workplace malaise: whining about the miseries of work and doing nothing about them.

Not everyone wants to come up with new ideas. Not everyone can do it, or is willing to accept the risks. But surely everyone can think about the ideas raised, add their two cents to the discussion, and maybe support any useful initiatives that result?

Then we might have a new—and better—version of the 1/9/90 Law. One where 90% explore and support ideas, 9% produce them, and only 1% sit on their hands and complain.

Sign up for our Email Newsletter

Technorati tags: change creativity potential possibilities success slow leadership