zlacker

It stories like these that make me wonder, is it better to take an adversarial/external approach to change (like Meredith) or to work slowly inside an org and change it from the inside?

Of course the external/adversarial approach can generate huge changes quickly by relatively junior folks, but always comes at a huge cost and is not sustainable (see: most of the people who did these protests have left). So you get one shot, and worse, it sends a message to others that this behavior isn't tolerated. So in the long run, could even lead to worse outcomes overall.

On the other hand, the idea that you can change the system before it changes you...well we all know how that usually works out.

>>dannyk+(OP)
Change from inside has a very poor track record. People who say that are usually rationalizing their involvement. Even non-violent protests are adversarial. The history of the world seems to suggest that is the one tried and known method for change is adversarial confrontation. If you look at it from a game theory/economics point of view, there is little incentive for people to change unless you change the landscape and the factors that compel their behavior. Change from inside really doesn't have that because organizations/organisms/nature are resistant to change -- if it is working why risk it? Very few organizations have the ability to disrupt itself.

>>hangon+62
> Change from inside has a very poor track record.

Has it? Or is it just less visible because it happens over a decade or two? Germany's left wing and their March Through The Institutions comes to mind as a very successful change from inside.