Why is change so hard?
Chip and Dan Heath aim to answer this question in their new book Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard. The two explain that, as a culture, we tend to believe that change is often difficult if not downright impossible. But we’re wrong. The Heath brothers set out to set us straight in “Switch.” Successful change, they say, isn’t the work of magic or miracles, but a concrete formula.Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
This isn’t the first time the Heaths have sought to illuminate us. In their 2007 New York Times bestseller “Made to Stick,” they explained why some ideas catch on while others burn out, and how to make yours do the former. Deemed a major success by several media outlets and businesses, “Made to Stick” landed on many a “must-read” list.
Unfortunately, their newest work just doesn’t measure up.
“Switch” is broken into three sections: “Direct the Rider,” “Motivate the Elephant,” and “Shape the Path.” These zoological terms, borrowed from Jonathan Haidt’s “The Happiness Hypothesis,” mean that you must provide the analytical mind (the Rider) with a clear goal, supply the emotional heart (the Elephant) with motivation, and spell out exactly how to get there (the Path).
Aiming to bridge the gap between the self-help books directed at individuals and the “change management” books aimed at executives, the Heaths fill chapters with research, commentary, and examples to show that change is made up of the same building blocks for everyone.
They offer up some fascinating research: You’re more likely to fail at a mental task after being deprived of cookies (or setting up a bridal registry) because self-control is an exhaustible resource; appealing to someone’s identity instead of offering incentives will inspire more change; asking “What’s working and how can we do more of it?” will produce more successful results than asking “What’s broken and how do we fix it?”
It’s interesting stuff, and you might even raise a few interested eyebrows at your next dinner party when you report that only six of the 24 most common “emotion” words are positive. But the research presented in “Switch” seems to lack a personal touch. I found myself asking why the researcher cared about the study? Why did the Heaths? What did the research subjects think? Even though the Heaths interviewed many scientists for “Switch,” the reporting seemed stale.
I found myself wishing for a more emotional connection.
Or, really, even any connection at all.
Divided into sections and then chapters, “Switch” is further condensed into snippets of a few pages each. These abbreviated bits created a jarring experience instead of a smooth read and made me frustrated at the Heaths who, instead of crafting thoughtful transitions, opted for a seemingly lazy route.