Homo Imitans and Viral Change (TM): Pass it on!

A brief look at Leandro Herrero’s latest thoughts on his Viral Change^TM approach to orchestrated social change.

Early in 2008, I set out my thoughts on Leandro Herrero’s book Viral Change^TM (here). Much (though not all) of his thesis on ‘how change happens’ resonates with my own informal coalitions view of organizational dynamics. In his latest book, imaginatively titled Homo Imitans, Herrero further emphasizes his view that social copying and social imitation (hence “Imitans”) can play a powerful role in an orchestrated approach to organizational (and wider social) change.

Homo Imitans is a good read. Herrero presents his arguments in a way that successfully marries some challenging propositions and background research with a conversational style.  It is far removed from the superficial ‘one-minute-management’ genre of books. But it is also highly accessible. And it’s easy to see how adoption of the approach could itself become infectious – after all, I’m blogging about it here!  At the same time, there are some differences between Viral Change^TM and informal coalitions that I feel are important. But I want to address those in a forthcoming post.  Here, I want briefly to outline the content of Homo Imitans and attempt to draw out some of Herrero’s main points.

The fundamental proposition of the book is that “the only change is behaviour change” and that this is brought about primarily through people copying the behaviours of others. It is through this process, according to Herrero, that cultures are formed and that change is achieved. People become ‘infected’ with new ways of behaving as they imitate the behaviours of influential others in their social networks.  Importantly, from the perspective of Viral Change^TM, this process can be orchestrated to bring about specific outcomes.

 We are because we copy

After providing an overview in Chapter 1 of what is to come, Herrero uses Chapter 2 to introduce us to what he describes as the “social life of Homo Imitans.”  His main aim here is to challenge the predominantly rational, ‘thinking man’ view of the world and to supplant it – at least in relation to social change – by the view that man is, in essence, an “unsophisticated imitator”.  He re-casts Descartes’ proposition, “I think, therefore I am,” with his own, “We are because we copy.”  This propensity to imitate what others are doing – especially those whom we consider to be significant amongst our peers – is increased by such factors as emotional connection, a common goal, being part of a crowd, group self-regulation and ritualistic behaviour. Interestingly, though, Herrero cautions against overestimating the impact that role models have on behavioural change - although he appears to be interpreting this in the limited sense of high profile people, whether these are senior managers in organizations or ‘celebrities’ in the wider world.

Contrasting ‘worlds’ of organizational change

Herrero carries this theme forward into Chapter 3, where he provides contrasting descriptions of “two worlds.”  These, he believes, are characteristic of two fundamentally different approaches to organizational (and wider social) change.  The first, which he labels “World I” is ruled by Homo Sapiens.  It is the “world of communication”, in which messages are sent in a range of sophisticated ways, to “push” people towards the desired changes.  “World II” is the “world of behaviours,” in which the Viral Change^TM methodology can be applied to “pull” people towards the desired goal through the dynamics of social infection.  This is where we can find Homo Imitans.  After contrasting the two approaches in relation to a number of issues, he concludes that “Change is a world of social infections [World II], not of broadcasting [World I].”  He goes on to say, “If you are a leader, you should be in the infection business, not the broadcasting business.”

Five disciplines

Chapter 4 is structured around what Herrero calls the “five disciplines of Viral Change^TM.”

The first of these reiterates the centrality of behaviours to the approach.  Because of the pivotal role that these play in Viral Change^TM, Herrero spells out five characteristics of behaviours, as he uses the term – or “five tests that they need to pass” to qualify as behaviours. He cites “collaboration” as an example of a ‘behaviour’ which, in Viral Change^TM terms, isn’t one. As it stands, it isn’t immediately actionable; attributable to an individual; unequivocal in its meaning; and so on. He also provides some advice on ways of uncovering the behaviours needed for change in a particular context.  Finally here, he repeats his proposition that only a small set of non-negotiable behaviours is required to effect change in organizations and other social settings.

Since Viral Change^TM is about orchestrating a process of social imitation around a number of influential individuals, understanding the nature of social influence and its scalability is crucial.  Herrero identifies and explores this as the second of his five disciplines.  The related chapter discusses a number of models of social infection, before pinpointing the one that he sees as being best suited to creating the desired social infections.  It is here that he introduces the idea of a community of “change champions,” whose role it is to engage others in the desired changes, through their personal modelling of the specific behavious and informal ‘peer-to-peer’ interactions.

Next, Herrero makes the case for seeing informal social networks as the third discipline of Viral Change^TM. He outlines ten functions that he sees these networks performing in all organizations, and argues why a focus on networks rather than team work is fundamental to change.  His thoughts on how such networks might be nurtured (rather than domesticated), and how change champions might best engage with them to create the desired social infection, complete the chapter.

Discipline No.4 is defined as “accelerating a new narrative.” This is the area that comes closest to challenging Herrero’s fundamental premise that change needs to focus on behaviours rather than mindsets: “I can’t find mindsets,” he repeats on several occasions, “But I can see behaviours.” However, it seemed to me that there was an unacknowledged concession here, with recognition of the powerful effect that beliefs, including people’s self-belief, can have on the likelihood of success. Since he sees these beliefs being sustained – or potentially shifted – through stories, Herrero concludes the chapter by setting out the characteristics of a “good” story from a social change perspective.

The fifth discipline of Viral Change^TM is what Herrero describes as “leaders outside the chart.” These people (his change champions) are chosen because they are particularly influential with their peers; not least because they are seen by their peers as being “people like us.”  They are activists themselves and are able to turn others into activists. He sees this as the core dynamic of social infections. One implication of this emphasis on informal, distributed leadership is that those in formal leadership positions need to change the way that they view and practise their role.  Herrero, describes this as “backstage leadership” and the overall process as “designed informality”. This means supporting the champions by creating the space for them to interact with others, whilst generally keeping a low profile.

Making it happen

In Chapter 5, Herrero describes the process that he uses to apply the above disciplines to specific organizational changes. He describes the “Viral Change^TM Roadmap” in terms of five distinct phases. To counter the anticipated charge that the process looks worryingly linear (Herrero’s Five Steps to contrast Kotter’s eight, perhaps) he stresses that these phases “frequently overlap”.  After outlining the elements and sought-after outcome of each phase, he concludes the chapter by reprising the key points of the Viral Change^TM approach (his “Viral Change^TM manifesto”) and showing three examples of how this has been applied in organizations.

Wider still and wider

Herrero devotes Chapter 6 to what he describes as “the art of social infection.”  Here, he explores the application of his Viral Change^TM approach to issues in the world beyond organizations.  His main message is that the dynamics of social change are the same, whether we are considering these at a micro (organizational) or macro (societal) level.  He also argues that each can learn lessons from the other.  The chapter provides some reinforcement for his earlier discussion, by casting the ‘five disciplines’ in a different (non-organizational) light. At the same time, it usefully underscores Herrero’s point about the futility of trying to achieve widespread social change through formal, structured, “World I” approaches.

Does it work?

In a brief final chapter, Herrero addresses the obvious “Does it work?” question.  The chapter is cryptically titled “Viral Change^TM cannot fail (it can also fail).”  In it, he argues firmly that its logic cannot fail “because it has to do with real people engaging with other real people doing something tangible and reproducing it again.”  At the same time, he acknowledges that, as a methodology for getting from A to B, it all depends on how well that methodology is applied (in relation to the guidance provided in this and his earlier books). 

Herrero would like to see Viral Change^TM become a way of life in organizations - that is, the normal, everyday way of doing business.  And he argues that whether or not it ‘works’ in that sense is very much in the gift of those involved – nobody else.

Homo Imitans and informal coalitions

Leandro Herrero makes a persuasive case for leaders in organizations to adopt his Viral Change^TM methodology.  And, as I said in the introduction to the post, much of what is written in Homo Imitans would find echoes in my own, informal coaltions view of organizational dynamics.  Although there are some important differences, which I will explore in a future post, Homo Imitans provides many valuable insights into the process of organizational change that challenge conventional practice.  I thoroughly recommend it.

You can buy a copy of Homo Imitans here 

Comments

[Tom Gibbons]

Without having read the book I will be interested to read the differences between Herrero's perspectives and that of informal coalitions. In the Does It Work section of this post it states 'as a methodology for getting from A to B, it all depends on how well that methodology is applied'. This sounds eerily like so many other methodologies about change where if you don't do it right you won't get what you want. This then means the methodology is based somehow or other on the possibility of creating a certain, predictable future which for me is a serious and problematic flaw. A flaw that typically leads to high levels of blame, guilt, second guessing and angst, all of which we have too much of already in our organizations.

[Chris Rodgers]

Thanks, Tom.

You make a very important point about the 'do it better and get it right' trap into which most of the conventional approaches to organizational change (and OD in the round) tend to fall. This is seemingly one of the 'differences' that I mean to point to between the Viral Change (TM) approach and the informal coalitions view of organizational dynamics.

In a recently published article on change, I wrote: "...first the ‘bad news’. This messy reality also means that there are no simple, if-you-do-this-you'll-get-that formulae. Nor, despite the rhetoric, is it possible for consultants and others to provide evidence which demonstrates that a generally applied approach will ‘work’ at this specific time, in this specific situation, with these specific people. Inconvenient though this might be, in a world that craves clarity, certainty and proof, the craving does not make these socially complex and uncertain dynamics of everyday interaction disappear."

Hopefully, I will get around to writing the follow-up post to this one in the next couple of days. I had originally intended to write it rather sooner than has turned out to be the case. But things don't always work out as intended!

Cheers, Chris

[Deb Booth]

Thank you for introducing me to these books, Chris. I love the ideas of ‘homo imitans’ and ‘viral change’ as a helpful way to think about the HOW of some individual behavioural changes. I don’t think they fully explain the WHY. But what a delightful thought for the formal leaders of an org which finds itself maladapted to its environment (imminent failure is the most common motivation for change) that employees will ‘naturally’ (and this is the real importance of the term ‘H. Imitans’) imitate new behaviours if the environment is ‘enabling’. Contrary to Herrero’s rosy view, you show Chris, that we are a conservative species very attached to our habits of thinking and acting.

“We are creatures of habit….we have a preference for certain routine and ritualistic ways of working, which become habitual behaviours over time” Informal coalitions p. 123.

Chris, you and Tom correctly decry the assumption that organisational change can be purposefully planned and executed, by design, which underlies Herrero’s book. I am interested in the social consequences of collective belief in this sort of myth (by ODers, org leaders, employees etc) and how these consequences may enable such myths (those which obscure understanding of the true nature of organisational life) to become attractive to many (become a discourse around which many people choose to coalesce), and are reproduced (? go ‘viral’) amongst the business community.

Have we (not you, Chris or Tom) been too quick to follow the USA’s heroic, individualistic cultural tradition and attribute the success or failure of our organisations to the individual performance of their leaders, rather than the market/ environmental conditions which tend to ensure that similar orgs tend to perform similarly? The attribution of success to purposeful individuals’ actions inevitably re-inforces (and arises from) the belief peddled by business schools that the scientific method can be applied to business and that A+B always = C. This collective belief legitimates the excessive power routinely offered to CEOs and others. It is a myth which you both explode, to little effect with those whose interests are served by its continuing popularity, more’s the pity.

Durkheim taught us a long time ago that social phenomena (such as org performance) cannot be predicted from a knowledge of individuals. He said explanations of social should be sought in ‘the conditions in which the social group in its totality is placed’ (The rules of the sociological method 1964 p. 106.) Organisational development interventions might usefully be focused on the creation of social conditions in which ‘leaders’ will be likely to conclude that their own interests (metaphysical, political and economic) are aligned with those of key organisational stakeholders.

Herrero begs the question of why informal leaders in the organisation might wish to become ‘change champions’? Whom are they copying when they model the desired new behaviours? Why? Might it be that we should pay more attention to the rewards expected by such informal leaders, as you do in your book, Informal Coalitions, Chris, when you explicitly acknowledge the need to use power to leverage commitment to championing organisational change.

Returning to my original theme it seems to me that many successful contributors to the dominant discourse in both OD and business (eg. Herrero) subtly re-interpret traditional cultural narratives (including those about ‘human nature’ and ‘social organisation’) in ways which disguise from everyone the inability of any individual to fully predict the consequences of purposeful attempts to change their organisation and the necessarily contingent nature of organisational leadership. The most popular approaches to OD preclude explicit recognition of the political role of management and organisation mythologies, ensuring that such mythologies are presented as ‘existentially true’.

Our business culture is closely modelled on that of the US. However it is more permeable than that of the US because we are close economically and geographically to the European mainland. We also have a different pedagogical tradition in some of our business schools – a belief that managers should be educated as well as trained. This enables a healthy cultural tradition of diversity, innovation and self-criticism amongst management teachers, researchers and writers. As the ‘double-dip’ becomes ‘stagflation’ and depression we have a valuable stock of ‘alternative’ knowledges (such as your own Chris) from which to draw tools which, by acknowledging managers’ dependence, enable organisational stakeholders to create the spaces in which meaning can be re-negotiated for a new world. If these come to be imitated, it will be because individuals believe they need to use them to solve the new problems they face, not just because to imitate is part of human nature.