Switch
Chip and Dan Heath aim to answer this question in their new book Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard. The two explain that, as a culture, we tend to believe that change is often difficult if not downright impossible. But we鈥檙e wrong. The Heath brothers set out to set us straight in 鈥淪witch.鈥� Successful change, they say, isn鈥檛 the work of magic or miracles, but a concrete formula.
This isn鈥檛 the first time the Heaths have sought to illuminate us. In their 2007 New York Times bestseller 鈥淢ade to Stick,鈥� they explained why some ideas catch on while others burn out, and how to make yours do the former. Deemed a major success by several media outlets and businesses, 鈥淢ade to Stick鈥� landed on many a 鈥渕ust-read鈥� list.
Unfortunately, their newest work just doesn鈥檛 measure up.
鈥淪witch鈥� is broken into three sections: 鈥淒irect the Rider,鈥� 鈥淢otivate the Elephant,鈥� and 鈥淪hape the Path.鈥� These zoological terms, borrowed from Jonathan Haidt鈥檚 鈥淭he Happiness Hypothesis,鈥� mean that you must provide the analytical mind (the Rider) with a clear goal, supply the emotional heart (the Elephant) with motivation, and spell out exactly how to get there (the Path).
Aiming to bridge the gap between the self-help books directed at individuals and the 鈥渃hange management鈥� books aimed at executives, the Heaths fill chapters with research, commentary, and examples to show that change is made up of the same building blocks for everyone.
They offer up some fascinating research: You鈥檙e more likely to fail at a mental task after being deprived of cookies (or setting up a bridal registry) because self-control is an exhaustible resource; appealing to someone鈥檚 identity instead of offering incentives will inspire more change; asking 鈥淲hat鈥檚 working and how can we do more of it?鈥� will produce more successful results than asking 鈥淲hat鈥檚 broken and how do we fix it?鈥�
It鈥檚 interesting stuff, and you might even raise a few interested eyebrows at your next dinner party when you report that only six of the 24 most common 鈥渆motion鈥� words are positive. But the research presented in 鈥淪witch鈥� seems to lack a personal touch. I found myself asking why the researcher cared about the study? Why did the Heaths? What did the research subjects think? Even though the Heaths interviewed many scientists for 鈥淪witch,鈥� the reporting seemed stale.
I found myself wishing for a more emotional connection.
Or, really, even any connection at all.
Divided into sections and then chapters, 鈥淪witch鈥� is further condensed into snippets of a few pages each. These abbreviated bits created a jarring experience instead of a smooth read and made me frustrated at the Heaths who, instead of crafting thoughtful transitions, opted for a seemingly lazy route.
The book鈥檚 examples pose another issue. There鈥檚 no doubt it鈥檚 heart-warming and motivating (the Elephant) to learn how individuals with few resources saved 122,000 lives with a simple list, revitalized a dying town by telling residents to spend more, and saved undernourished Vietnamese children by implementing the smallest dietary change.
But these examples confuse the three- pillared-structure of the book. Each section covers one third of the change equation, but the examples, mirroring successful change in action, must cover all three. The constant shift between overall message and specific details makes 鈥淪witch鈥� seem jumbled.
Then there鈥檚 the repetition. Too often the brothers latch on to a particular example, adjective, or phrase that they then repeated over and over again. (Like calling the Rider a wheel spinner 鈥� six times in 33 pages. Or noting 11 times in three chapters how researchers increase the sale of 1-percent milk.) It鈥檚 not that these concepts and examples aren鈥檛 interesting. They are 鈥� the first time.
And what鈥檚 worse than the repetition is how it makes us feel 鈥� undervalued. When the Heaths explain three times that the Rider enjoys analyzing, making PowerPoint presentations, and seeing spreadsheets, we start to ask why the Heaths think we really need to be reminded of these simple facts over and over and over again? Instead of having us on their side, we begin to feel indignant.
Add repetition to a jarring reading experience and a shifting structure, and it starts to seem as if the text wasn鈥檛 sufficiently edited before going to the printer.
That said, 鈥淪witch鈥� isn鈥檛 all bad.
The Heath brothers do make a good argument for their three-pronged approach, especially in their first chapter, which is dynamite. CLINICS 鈥� two-page 鈥渨orkshops鈥� placed throughout the book 鈥� though a little hokey, do a good job of connecting real-world action to the Heath鈥檚 theory of change.
And there鈥檚 humor! Their parenthetical asides, though overdone, often inspire genuine laughter (as when they qualify their comparison of a difficult medical procedure to landing on an aircraft carrier: 鈥淣ot that we know what either of these things feels like. We just picture both being substantially more dangerous than writing a nonfiction book.鈥�
These men are obviously funny, and with a New York Times bestseller in their past and a popular ongoing column with Fast Company, they have all the signs of being engaging and smart, too.
This is why it鈥檚 so strange that 鈥楽witch鈥� falls flat. There are too many dots that never quite connect. Sure, weeks from now, you鈥檒l remember the Rider, the Elephant, and the Path (it鈥檚 hard to forget capitalized and oft-used names), but will you really understand how to turn those words into change?
The Heath brothers just don鈥檛 give us enough direction. And therefore, 鈥淪witch鈥� lacks the ability to do exactly what it鈥檚 trying to teach us: implement change.
Kate Vander Wiede is a freelance writer in Boston.
