The most common answer is political power. Build coalitions among influential persons and groups. Then seek an authoritative decision which requires others to comply with the new idea, employ the new behavior, or use the innovative product. Here is the way political processes usually work. First, some range of gnawing concerns (some “wants”) arises. Things are not as they should be for some persons in a community. Unless these various wants are felt strongly by influential people, and the people who hold them bring together various subgroups, no change is likely. People are usually upset about something or other but not sufficiently so to press authorities into a decision. But if the gap, if the discontent, is great enough a “demand” may well be in the offing. Then, if those concerned feel they can make authorities take notice and have confidence that a more desirable state of affairs is possible, they take action.

Once a demand is made, it must gain access to the formal decision-making system if it is to become a change in policy or program. Key here is a sympathetic “gate-keeper,” a person or group who can put the demand on the authorities’ agenda. Without a supportive gatekeeper, demanders must be powerful enough to break the gate down and be willing to take that risk. Committee and task-force chairpersons and upper level managers and members of the C-suite can play gate-keeping roles concerning demands for policy change. Once on the agenda, the demand gets deliberated. It is studied and debated, often modified or changed, usually by an executive or some committee. If it survives this buffeting, it emerges as a formulated proposal for change which then gets reviewed, modified, revised, reduced and in general worked over by all the persons or groups concerned about its potential impact on their vested interests.

Will this new program, product or process (such as coaching) gain our department more attention, more autonomy, more status, more funding? Or is this program, product or process likely to have the opposite impact? Is it likely to attract more believers and customers or are we likely to create disbelievers and lose customers? Usually, coalitions of interest will form pro and con. Compromises are made to get some decision through. Much of the debate may focus on the proposal’s soundness of reason and evidence, but savvy observers know that the issue is who gets what coveted “goodies.” Important to the survival of change proposals in this river of nibbling piranhas are the persistent efforts of highly influential “issue sponsors” who are determined to carry the change through. Without such determined advocates, the status quo powers will defeat any change attempt.