We just had one of our groups give up on a $20 million project that would have been good for the city, good for the group (no risk, no ongoing responsibilities, and good for morale), and very good for the intended residents. It was economically feasible and marketable, so what happened? Why, when there was nothing but positives, did the group vote to not proceed? It can be understood by considering Gleicher's Formula: D x V x F >R
Three factors must be present for meaningful organizational change to take place. These factors are:
D = Dissatisfaction with how things are now (providing a reason to change);
V = Vision of what is possible (providing a direction to take);
F = First, concrete steps that can be taken towards the vision (understandable action).
If the product of these three factors is greater than R = Resistance, then change is possible.
Failure in this case occurred because even though there was some dissatisfaction with present reality, there was no consensus on a vision of the possible. Therefore the group was not capable of overcoming the resistance to change at this time. This again proves that good ideas and a promise of good results are not enough.
This has been a year of rememberance. It has been 25 years since the opening of Bethlehem Place and 20 years since the first Habitat for Humanity Niagara home. I was there for both, as the development consultant for BP and chair of the Habitat board. I've just been asked to attend a board meeting of Cornerstone Co-op, which I helped start 30 years ago, as a living artifact of the early days. 
