Skip to main content
Customer Review
Reviewed in the United States on December 22, 2010
Switch is a book Josef Goebbels, Adolf Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, would rate with five stars. Goebbels's Principles of Propaganda, just like the Switch change framework (Direct the Rider, Motivate the Elephant, and Shape the Path) excises Values and Goal Setting from Change. What remains is a set of tactics Switch identifies to realize change no matter what goals and values the leaders want to achieve and realize. Although the change framework in Switch potentially provides powerful tactics for change, Switch has some major and fatal deficiencies.
The framework with its tactics for change described in SWITCH - HOW TO CHANGE THINGS WHEN CHANGE IS HARD by Chip Heath and Dan Heath published by Broadway Books, New York 2010 has some major and fatal deficiencies. (I will use the term "change framework" as a convenient way to refer to the Switch framework and tactics for change described in this book.)
The change framework
* Is amoral and value neutral,
* Is dangerous and provides a potentially powerful means for propaganda,
* Discounts reason and is inconsistent with its formulation,
* Can be used to establish and sustain totalitarianism, potentially resulting in holocausts,
* Is missing the ethical compass, the Superego from Freud's standpoint, and
* Is inimical to democracy and potentially supportive of totalitarianism
It is recommended that the authors augment the book by providing a methodology for how members in a group can democratically formulate and support worthy goals to satisfy the critical and important needs of the group in a manner consistent with the group's prevailing pluralistic values.
The change framework is amoral and value neutral. There is no discussion in Switch about what makes a goal desirable (e.g., using methods of Immanuel Kant, utilitarianism, or Sir William Walter Ross) and worthy of attainment in the context of the ethical values. There is no discussion on how to identify goals that are worthy of attainment in the context of these ethical values and real needs. In the wrong hands, it could be used as an effective recipe for despotism. The goals are critically important.
The change framework is dangerous and provides a potentially powerful means for propaganda. The framework may be extremely dangerous if effective. It is like giving a loaded gun with instructions on how to effectively use it without providing the user advice on the ethical use of the gun, e.g., under what (very restricted) conditions (e.g., target practice and self-defense), it is ethically permissible to use it.
Without the moral compass, Switch provides a simple framework for propaganda, which consists of tactics aimed at influencing or manipulating attitudes and behaviors of an individual or a community to help realize one or more goals. Many of the tactics identified in Switch are similar to those proposed by Goebbels and other advocates of propaganda. See [...]The change framework discounts reason and is inconsistent with its formulation. The framework explicitly discounts reason. The framework explicitly discounts reason by asserting that the Rider will think in "True But Useless" (TBU) circles if not given direction. It claims that the Rider will not be able to set the direction if the Elephant opposes the rider`s direction. But isn't the change framework itself a rational mechanism that the Rider can use to nudge or coax the Elephant to move in the direction that Rider chooses? Even though the framework explicitly discounts reason, it provides the Rider (the intellect) the means by which to influence the elephant. Therefore, the change framework enables the intellect and reason to greatly influence if not control the emotions of the Elephant.
If the intellect and reason are really as Switch portrays, how did the change framework become articulated, presented, and communicated? The Rider as described in the Switch could not have formulated the change framework. It would simply think in circles (TBU). In Switch, the Leader when equipped with the framework and tactics for change is the agent of change.
The framework and tactics for change must have been created by a series of clever Riders, don't you think? The Elephant didn't create the change framework. Overtime, the authors of propaganda and change literature, including the books referenced in "Recommendations for Additional Reading," accumulated knowledge that the Switch authors synthesized into this very powerful change framework. The Rider is not the weak analyzer Switch would have you believe. Riders created the change framework that enable the Rider some level of mastery over the Elephant. Reason created the change framework. Therefore, reason and the Rider are of paramount importance.
The change framework can used to establish and sustain totalitarianism, potentially resulting in holocausts. Switch pays little attention to the Leaders. But how does the Leader relate to the framework and the tactics for change? Who are the Leaders and what is their relationship to the Riders and Elephants? In the case of an individual, it is your reason equipped with the change framework. Generally, a Leader is a person (Rider/Elephant) who is expert in the change framework and who is in a leadership position of responsibility for a group of people or community to help the group or community satisfy some of its most important needs by applying the framework and tactics for change in a manner as consistent as possible with the prevailing and pluralistic ethical values of the members of the group or community. There should be much more discussion about Leaders and how they relate to the change framework. The last century should have taught us that unbridled reason (The Rider with propaganda) threatens to erupt in holocaust without an ethical compass.
The change framework is missing the ethical compass, the Superego from Freud's standpoint.
Freud (Beyond the Pleasure Principle 1920 and The Ego and the Id 1923) would have called the ethical compass, which is totally missing in the Switch, the Superego. He would have called the Elephant the Id and the Rider the Ego. The rational Ego attempts to resolve or at least mitigate the conflict between the Id (Elephant) and the Superego (the ethical compass). The change framework is a good means to help mitigate if not resolve this conflict.
Because there is no understanding of the connection between these tactics and worthy goals in the context of ethical values, Switch misses the opportunity to provide direction (to the Ego) on how identify the specific tactics for change that would be effective given the nature of the goals that ought be realized in the context of the ethical compass (Superego). The framework provides no methodology for the selection of specific tactics given worthy goals in the context of evolved ethical values.
The change framework is inimical to democracy and potentially supportive of totalitarianism. For a description of totalitarianism see [...]. How does the Switch framework with its leaders relate to a democratic society? The Switch encourages the Leaders to separate themselves from the other members of the group. The Leaders somehow determine the goals (the framework provides no guidance) and use the framework with its tactics for change to manipulate the other members of the group to realize the goals. There is no discussion of how the leaders formulate worthy goals that are consistent the leaders' group ethical values and genuine needs. This framework and its tactics for change can very easily be used to establish and sustain totalitarianism. The fatal flaw of the framework is the absence of an ethical component.
Some recommendations follow. The authors should augment the framework with an ethical compass. They should provide advice and methods to discover the prevailing and pluralistic values of the group. They should provide advice to the members of the group on how to democratically identify the critical and important needs of the group in the context of the group's prevailing pluralistic values. They should provide a methodology for how members in a group can democratically formulate worthy goals in the context of the group's prevailing pluralistic values to satisfy the critical and important needs of the group in a manner consistent with the group's prevailing pluralistic values.
With the satisfaction of these recommendations, Switch can be transformed from a potentially dangerous amoral change framework into an ethically directed and integrated framework for change that helps satisfy real needs using tactics for change that are consistent with the group's prevailing pluralistic values.
The framework with its tactics for change described in SWITCH - HOW TO CHANGE THINGS WHEN CHANGE IS HARD by Chip Heath and Dan Heath published by Broadway Books, New York 2010 has some major and fatal deficiencies. (I will use the term "change framework" as a convenient way to refer to the Switch framework and tactics for change described in this book.)
The change framework
* Is amoral and value neutral,
* Is dangerous and provides a potentially powerful means for propaganda,
* Discounts reason and is inconsistent with its formulation,
* Can be used to establish and sustain totalitarianism, potentially resulting in holocausts,
* Is missing the ethical compass, the Superego from Freud's standpoint, and
* Is inimical to democracy and potentially supportive of totalitarianism
It is recommended that the authors augment the book by providing a methodology for how members in a group can democratically formulate and support worthy goals to satisfy the critical and important needs of the group in a manner consistent with the group's prevailing pluralistic values.
The change framework is amoral and value neutral. There is no discussion in Switch about what makes a goal desirable (e.g., using methods of Immanuel Kant, utilitarianism, or Sir William Walter Ross) and worthy of attainment in the context of the ethical values. There is no discussion on how to identify goals that are worthy of attainment in the context of these ethical values and real needs. In the wrong hands, it could be used as an effective recipe for despotism. The goals are critically important.
The change framework is dangerous and provides a potentially powerful means for propaganda. The framework may be extremely dangerous if effective. It is like giving a loaded gun with instructions on how to effectively use it without providing the user advice on the ethical use of the gun, e.g., under what (very restricted) conditions (e.g., target practice and self-defense), it is ethically permissible to use it.
Without the moral compass, Switch provides a simple framework for propaganda, which consists of tactics aimed at influencing or manipulating attitudes and behaviors of an individual or a community to help realize one or more goals. Many of the tactics identified in Switch are similar to those proposed by Goebbels and other advocates of propaganda. See [...]The change framework discounts reason and is inconsistent with its formulation. The framework explicitly discounts reason. The framework explicitly discounts reason by asserting that the Rider will think in "True But Useless" (TBU) circles if not given direction. It claims that the Rider will not be able to set the direction if the Elephant opposes the rider`s direction. But isn't the change framework itself a rational mechanism that the Rider can use to nudge or coax the Elephant to move in the direction that Rider chooses? Even though the framework explicitly discounts reason, it provides the Rider (the intellect) the means by which to influence the elephant. Therefore, the change framework enables the intellect and reason to greatly influence if not control the emotions of the Elephant.
If the intellect and reason are really as Switch portrays, how did the change framework become articulated, presented, and communicated? The Rider as described in the Switch could not have formulated the change framework. It would simply think in circles (TBU). In Switch, the Leader when equipped with the framework and tactics for change is the agent of change.
The framework and tactics for change must have been created by a series of clever Riders, don't you think? The Elephant didn't create the change framework. Overtime, the authors of propaganda and change literature, including the books referenced in "Recommendations for Additional Reading," accumulated knowledge that the Switch authors synthesized into this very powerful change framework. The Rider is not the weak analyzer Switch would have you believe. Riders created the change framework that enable the Rider some level of mastery over the Elephant. Reason created the change framework. Therefore, reason and the Rider are of paramount importance.
The change framework can used to establish and sustain totalitarianism, potentially resulting in holocausts. Switch pays little attention to the Leaders. But how does the Leader relate to the framework and the tactics for change? Who are the Leaders and what is their relationship to the Riders and Elephants? In the case of an individual, it is your reason equipped with the change framework. Generally, a Leader is a person (Rider/Elephant) who is expert in the change framework and who is in a leadership position of responsibility for a group of people or community to help the group or community satisfy some of its most important needs by applying the framework and tactics for change in a manner as consistent as possible with the prevailing and pluralistic ethical values of the members of the group or community. There should be much more discussion about Leaders and how they relate to the change framework. The last century should have taught us that unbridled reason (The Rider with propaganda) threatens to erupt in holocaust without an ethical compass.
The change framework is missing the ethical compass, the Superego from Freud's standpoint.
Freud (Beyond the Pleasure Principle 1920 and The Ego and the Id 1923) would have called the ethical compass, which is totally missing in the Switch, the Superego. He would have called the Elephant the Id and the Rider the Ego. The rational Ego attempts to resolve or at least mitigate the conflict between the Id (Elephant) and the Superego (the ethical compass). The change framework is a good means to help mitigate if not resolve this conflict.
Because there is no understanding of the connection between these tactics and worthy goals in the context of ethical values, Switch misses the opportunity to provide direction (to the Ego) on how identify the specific tactics for change that would be effective given the nature of the goals that ought be realized in the context of the ethical compass (Superego). The framework provides no methodology for the selection of specific tactics given worthy goals in the context of evolved ethical values.
The change framework is inimical to democracy and potentially supportive of totalitarianism. For a description of totalitarianism see [...]. How does the Switch framework with its leaders relate to a democratic society? The Switch encourages the Leaders to separate themselves from the other members of the group. The Leaders somehow determine the goals (the framework provides no guidance) and use the framework with its tactics for change to manipulate the other members of the group to realize the goals. There is no discussion of how the leaders formulate worthy goals that are consistent the leaders' group ethical values and genuine needs. This framework and its tactics for change can very easily be used to establish and sustain totalitarianism. The fatal flaw of the framework is the absence of an ethical component.
Some recommendations follow. The authors should augment the framework with an ethical compass. They should provide advice and methods to discover the prevailing and pluralistic values of the group. They should provide advice to the members of the group on how to democratically identify the critical and important needs of the group in the context of the group's prevailing pluralistic values. They should provide a methodology for how members in a group can democratically formulate worthy goals in the context of the group's prevailing pluralistic values to satisfy the critical and important needs of the group in a manner consistent with the group's prevailing pluralistic values.
With the satisfaction of these recommendations, Switch can be transformed from a potentially dangerous amoral change framework into an ethically directed and integrated framework for change that helps satisfy real needs using tactics for change that are consistent with the group's prevailing pluralistic values.
