What to Change First: Attitude or Action?

This article is the thirty-fifth in a series about Change from Steve Roesler.

We love to talk about Change.

Change is another word for Life, so it's something that we all have in common. People change (or want to), organizations change (or want to)...we all have to decide about how we'll deal with life, individually or corporately: live and grow, or live but remain frozen and immobilized.

When it comes to Change, there is a point in the conversation where someone has to act--and act differently-- or nothing changes.

Attitude or Action?

The answer is "Yes."

In part, It's an issue of learning styles.

• Some people act only after they've gained an understanding of theory and context. Impacting their attitude is the first step in gaining action.

• Others start acting immediately, then step back to see what it all means. Action plus reflection creates context and understanding for the bigger picture.

What's happening in your organization to combine education and action?

Comments

[Karin H.]

Hi Steve

OK, let's play devil's advocate: isn't changing your Attitude an Action?

I find this a tough question because IMHO I can't separate the two: attitude and action are - at least in my life I think - so intertwined it's hard to see or decide what was first, or what has to come first.

Hope others can show me some clarity in this matter, because my 'attitude' causes me to stumble when trying to explain to others (in our business) why things need to change, enhance, grow et. Or is that just the proof in the pudding of different 'learning' (living) styles?

Karin H. (Keep It Simple Sweetheart, specially in business)

[peter vajda]

Hi, Steve,

I'm glad you're back.

a bit of a left turn...

attitude - a mental position with regard to a fact or state
action - the manner or method of performing; a thing done

Think of relationships and "commitment". For commitment to be conscious, honest, sincere, true and real in relationship, one must have a true harmony or sync between the attitude of commitment and the action of commitment.

I may have the attitude of commitment but my negative, sabotaging, careless, disrespectful actions and behavior are counter to my attitude and don't reflect commitment even though I talk myself hoarse about how committed I really am...I tell a good story.

I may "do" everything that demonstrates commitment, but I spend the greater part of my mental activity wishing I were out of the relationship, fantasizing about someone with whom I'd really like to be in relationship, wondering why I entered the relationship in the first place, etc. Just going through the motions.

So, yes, styles differ, but in the end, whether it's a relationship, or "change," without a true harmonious, honest, sincere and self-responsible connection between attitude and the action, something will eventually have to "give".

So, often, change is not long lasting or untenable because one cannot or will not do the work to sync up these two elements of the "commitment" (to a person or to change) equation and thus will come off as fake, phony, going through the motions, or be seen as "uncommitted." "Why?" is another story.

[Joe Raasch]

Great connection Steve!

Karen, does this help?

My view is summed in this quote from Tryon Edwards:

“Thoughts lead on to purpose, purpose leads on to actions, actions form habits, habits decide character, and character fixes our destiny."

Peter, great link between commitment and compliance. One cannot build sustainable change with mere compliance.

[Jim Stroup]

Hello Steve,

Peter's comment, I think, reflects the insight that lies at the heart of a form of psychotherapy called Cognitive Therapy, which argues that behaviors result from thoughts, and we often don't recognize that these are preceding and generating or shaping our action. To keep it simple, when thoughts are functional - no problem; when they're dysfunctional, there may be a clinical disorder.

In the context of your discussion and Peter's observation, if you don't examine, address, and prepare the ground for changing your thoughts, or attitude, you will find conscious efforts to behave or act differently to be straining against deep, often, or usually, unconscious resistance.

In other words, if I have Peter's main idea right, actions aren't sustainable without the right attitude. I happen to agree with that.

Of course, you can approach attitude either directly, or via experience with new approaches, as you suggest. It just seems to me that ultimately attitude has to be addressed effectively for change behaviors to be truly operative. The first two phrases of Joe's quote summarize this, and the last two suggest the effect on corporate culture of the management of this process.

[Karin H.]

Hi Steve, Joe and Jim

Yes Joe, your quote puts the finger straight on my 'feelings' in regards of this issue. So thanks for that.
Jim, Cognitive Therapy rings a bell too.

IMHO experience learned from former following (conscious or not) the process in Joe's quote makes the 'habit' into an change accepting attitude - which makes instigating, accepting actions 'easier'.
Hence my 'feeling' of those two items being intertwined. I have a clearer picture of the process in my head now.

Karin H.

[Wally Bock]

I think my experience heads in the other direction on this one. I've always found it easier and more effective to act my way into believing, rather than believing myself into action. I've found that compliance is fine in the beginning, if the action produces good results, commitment will follow.

[Steve Roesler]

Karin, Peter, Joe, Jim, and Wally,

I think this conversation may be an ideal representation of what this medium can achieve.

By the time I got back to see if there were any comments, you had already carried the discussion to a new level as well as clarify some of Karin's thinking. It just doesn't get any better than that.

When I sat down to write the brief post, here were some assumptions and beliefs that I didn't take time to convey:

1. In the back of my mind, I was thinking about major shifts that someone would want to make in a large organization.

2. Assumption: the people involved are mentally healthy vs. dysfunctional. That said, my experience has been that perfectly "normal" people can become somewhat dysfunctional as a result of unhealthy organizational dynamics. Organizational dynamics, though, is an intellectual phrase that takes the focus away from where it needs to be: the individuals involved in creating the unhealthy situation.

3. Like Wally, I'm inclined to step out in faith, try something, and then evaluate the results. If they're good, then I'll commit. If not, I'll try and help out with an alternative.

However: In order to take a step--or leap--of faith, I have to trust the person/manager making the request.

Which means that, regardless of the change, some prior relationship has to have been established; or, the "new thing" has to be relatively low-risk to give it a shot.

Finally: What prompted the post is the plethora of programs designed to educate people about "Change". There are those who will say that an entire organization--all levels--need to be thoroughly educated on the dynamics of change before initiating anything. As a result of involvement in many "Change" projects over the years, I would have to say that that is not the most effective or efficient way to bring about improvements.

Thanks to all...