“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
If all you’ve got as leverage is anecdote or theory then this is all that going to happen. What would you do? Pay attention to something you disagree with that only exists on paper? Of course not. It can’t be paid attention to, so ignore it. There’s an awful lot going on elsewhere to pay attention to. What else could they do?
A while ago someone I made my colleagues laugh. They were looking at job vacancies, one called out, “Here’s a job for you!” A “problem manager” if you will, the job is “fixing root causes“. I turned my well-shaped button nose up at it, stating, “it’s flawed from the off, they’ve already decided that the root causes aren’t them, as its up to somebody else’s job to fix them. So what’s the actual managers job then?” They laughed like drains. There he was again, cracking off about managers and always disagreeing, trying to prove them wrong. As a lot of what I said could be construed as hilarious, what else could they do?
Instead, curiosity and dissatisfaction led to it being pulled by one part of the organisation as unofficial “guerilla systems thinking“, doing it under the radar, and the result of that is what’s going to be used next as feed to create more curiosity and dissatisfaction but in a more “official” way. More next on “How to change the world on a shoestring”
*He never actually said that, it’s apocryphal. But it’s good enough for me. In my experience it’s a combination of all 4 at different times and in different contexts. But it’s a good summary of the 3 reactions you’ll get before win-time when you decide to do something different instead.