Propensity to Change = Purpose - Loss
By Sherry Hakimi
A few weeks ago, I was invited as a speaker by a prominent foundation, addressing one of their leadership program cohorts. After sharing about genEquality’s programs as well as a bit about my role as a Commissioner for the NYC Commission on Gender Equity, we got into a really interesting Q&A session. Given the foundation that they are affiliated with, I didn’t expect anything less than great questions from the participants, and they certainly didn’t disappoint. One participant’s question has stuck with me, mainly because it touched on a large barrier to our advancement towards equality. I’m sharing this piece of the discussion in the name of democratizing insights for impact.
The question was something to the effect of, “What do you say to women who are vocal against gender equality?” The question arose out of the questioner’s direct experience working in international development in developing countries in which women’s rights – including economic empowerment, access to education, political power, and social inclusion – are still lagging. We often assume that all women must naturally be on board with every equality-oriented initiative. However, this isn’t reality. As the child of immigrants who has worked in the development and gender equality spaces, domestically and internationally, I have lived experience with this question. I’ve had quite a few of these conversations with female relatives, acquaintances, and colleagues.
In progressive and social impact spaces, we often talk about our purpose in the work, but we don’t talk about what people might be losing in the course of our work. We think of all that we think they would get – Equality! Empowerment! Inclusion! Access! Rights! – but we don’t think about what they might be giving up in exchange. And sometimes, it is the things that people would lose that cause them to resist any change, even if it’s for a good thing like “equality.”
For some people – women included – the status quo is comfortable. They feel confident and competent in the way the world works, even if it is not gender-equal. It feels stable, comfortable, and safe, even if it is not inclusive. For some people – including women – their economic, social, familial, and emotional needs are already being met…and the idea of ‘social change’ threatens the fulfillment of those needs. They do not want to lose anything, and their resistance to loss shows up as resistance to gender equality (or whatever the social change might be centered on).
As one of my former professors, Ron Heifetz, has said, “When change involves real or potential loss, people hold on to what they have and resist the change.” This makes sense. Achieving gender-equal policies, practices, behaviors, and beliefs requires us to accept that the way we currently operate will end. It requires us all to learn new things. On some level, it also asks each of us to be ok with feeling incompetent, uncomfortable, and unstable until we learn our way into a new equilibrium centered around inclusive, equality-oriented ways. Why would anyone actively put their self in a potentially uncomfortable, difficult, unstable, or otherwise undesirable position if they don’t believe that the upside outweighs the downside? In that line of thought, I would add an addendum to Heifetz’s thinking: people resist change when faced with the prospect of real loss without significant purpose.
That’s how I answered the question of what I would say to women who are vocal against gender equality: that I would maintain curiosity, and try to engage my conversation partner in a meaningful conversation by keeping in mind the following mental equation:
Propensity to Change = Purpose – Loss
This is an equation I use often in all aspects of my work, but especially in thinking about how to navigate conversations that involve changing hearts and minds. It’s a helpful way to ensure I don’t lose myself in my own beliefs, and ensure that I am actively thinking and being curious about the other person’s beliefs and circumstances. After all, sustainable social change doesn’t happen in a top-down manner; it takes all of us to engage, meet each other where we are, and buy in to a collective vision in a way that makes sense. We have to recognize negotiate our own and other people’s losses, both tangible and intangible. Ultimately, we have to ensure that whatever change we’re working to effect actually makes other people’s lives better…and that starts with each person believing that the purpose behind the change outweighs whatever they might lose in the process.
As I’ve said before, purpose mobilizes people in a way that nothing else can. If the purpose behind the proposed change is great enough, the inevitable loss(es) won’t be a barrier; they’ll be a trade-off in a net-positive equation.
When we elevate purpose and mitigate barriers, we maximize our propensity to change.