top down change

TEP #15: Why top-down change fails (and how bottom-up succeeds)

When I was a college student, my dream was to be a revolutionary changemaker.

This is fairly common among youth – there’s something romantic in fighting injustice and leading others toward an idealistic future.

Inspired by fictionalized documentaries about Gandhi and Malcolm X, I led street protests and got into small skirmishes with police. My juvenile fantasies seemed to be coming true.

“May Day protests draw about 400”, Star Tribune, May 2, 2000. Photo by Rita Reed.

But my path as a changemaker didn’t turn out as I expected.

After a couple of my friends were arrested during a protest and faced felony charges, I paused my street activism to earn some money.

My first job in the “real world” was helping low-income adults on welfare find employment. 

I felt like a cog in the bureaucratic machine. 

Day after day I met with clients followed by endless paperwork. This anti-poverty work was anything but revolutionary.

But after about nine months slogging away in my windowless office – and helping hundreds of people land a job – I realized that there had been two foundational flaws in my thinking.

First, I had viewed “being a changemaker” as a point in time – the moment when you directed or caused a major top-down change and “made an impact” on society. 

Second, I viewed the world and its problems as a kind of machine that needed to be repaired. In this vision, the only thing preventing utopia was a charismatic leader to pull the right lever. 

My reflection on these theoretical ideas about change was simple: I hadn’t done anything momentous as an employment counselor, but I had done some good.

What I came to understand was that most impact is not top-down – but rather a result of individuals playing their own unique role in a larger ecosystem. In other words, the most effective way to help others is by realizing the potential of how to be just a little bit better in everyday moments.

This insight was bolstered by the observation that most social problems – like homelessness, crime, and poverty – are much too complex to be controlled in a top-down way. There are too many actors with varying perspectives, too many interconnected systems, and too many policies working at cross-purposes.

This is when I started to wonder:

Maybe how you see problems, change and agency matters more than your position or title.

If this is true, affecting change isn’t a matter of power or top-down directives. Nor is it a matter of acting like a hero. 

It’s actually a mindset that anyone can adopt. 

(It’s ironic that I had the top-down mindset as a protestor and developed the bottom-up mindset working in a hierarchical system run by bureaucrats.) 

Here are 3 differences between the top-down and bottom-up mindsets you need to understand if you want to start making a big impact.

Top-down seeks control, Bottom-up seeks influence

A top-down mindset is characterized by a focus on hierarchy and control, where decisions are made by those in positions of power and are imposed on those below them. 

This approach ignores the perspectives of those being controlled and leads to resentment and resistance.

A bottom-up mindset values the input and experiences of individuals and seeks to empower them to contribute to decision-making and problem-solving. 

It’s more likely to effectively influence people, as it recognizes their worth and autonomy and encourages their engagement and ownership.

Top down avoids failure, Bottom-up learns by failing

A top-down mindset has a fear of failure and desire to avoid it at all costs. This can lead to a reluctance to take risks or try new things, as those in positions of power may be afraid of being held accountable for any mistakes or setbacks. 

As a result, the top-down mindset may actually prevent much progress from being made, as it stifles creativity and innovation.

It loves the status quo.

A bottom-up mindset recognizes that failure is a natural part of the learning and growth process. 

Instead of avoiding failure, it embraces it as an opportunity to learn and improve.

When no one has to deny mistakes, change becomes easier.

Goodbye status quo. 

Top-down makes big changes, Bottom-up tinkers to see what works

A top-down mindset seeks to completely remake systems with large reforms and big policy changes.

These reforms are often highly risky, as they can be expensive and complex, and may not always produce the desired results.

The bottom-up mindset tests small, incremental changes that are evaluated to see what works and what doesn’t.

This approach is often seen as more cautious and conservative in the short-term, as it seeks to avoid the risks associated with big, sweeping reforms.

However, by finding solutions that are practical, achievable, and tested, it more reliably leads to major system-wide changes than top-down reform.

Seeing what is possible from any role

Top-down changes can be effective when they empower others to make decisions, allow mistakes to gain learning, and involve evolutionary testing.

The truth is that we can all “make a difference” in whatever role we play – even from the top. It simply requires us to adopt a mindset of what is possible from the bottom up.

Internalize these 3 differences between top-down and bottom-up to start seeing more opportunities for impact.

I’d love to hear from you:

  • What other differences between top-down and bottom-up mindsets have you observed?
  • When was the moment you knew you had embraced the bottom-up mindset?

DM me on LinkedIn and I’ll do my best to get back to everyone.

See you again next week.

==

Whenever you’re ready, there are two ways I can help you:

I’m a strategic advisor for the toughest societal problems like poverty, crime and homelessness. People come to me when they want to stop spinning their wheels and get transformative, systems-level change.

I’m a coach for emerging and executive leaders in the social and public sectors who want to make progress on their biggest goals and challenges.

Let’s find out how I can help you become transformational.