I suppose all of us pride ourselves on having an open mind, examining the facts and doing what’s best. Why, then, is change so hard?

I spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about this subject, both with my clients and in a larger sense. I wish I had a better answer. Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions provided some insights.

Kuhn notes that, most of the time, scientists work on “normal science,” within a “paradigm,” that summarizes the law, theory and patterns of thinking within a particular area. And normal science involves filling in missing details within that paradigm.

Over time, data that don’t align with the paradigm build up. In some cases, the paradigm can be adjusted, but over time more and more evidence that there is something wrong accumulates. Eventually a new theory, that better explains both the old data and new, is developed. A crisis, or fork in the road, occurs.

Most of the time the old guard, those with much invested in the old paradigm, fight the new theory. They question the data, work to extend the old paradigm, and on and on. As Max Planck observed:

 “An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out.”

So eventually a new paradigm replaces the old. But clearly it takes a long time.

Quite naturally people have worked to extend the thinking to other areas beyond science, though I once read somewhere that Kuhn objected to these extensions.

For me, the simple message was this:  “If change is hard in science, it is hard virtually impossible everywhere. Deal with it.”