"We need a change."

The great motto of our modern times.

"We need a change or I need a change" is an oft heard and spoken assertion. In sports, coaches are usually fired under the excuse of "we needed a change" which usually follows or precedes (depending on the mood of the messenger) the classic "the player's were no longer responding to the coach" line.

Whenever something does not go our way or proves to be a little too long in its turn around, we fall back on "we need a change." It makes us feel good that we are actually doing something to actively solve a problem. That we are searching energetically for solutions. We justify our salaries if not ourselves as a competent person in doing this. The old saying goes in sports "you can't fire 23 guys so you fire the coach."

How's that for shrugging of the shoulders and skirting responsibility? What about the people who selected the 23 players? Firing a coach and hiring a successor leads to what stock analysts call 'dead-cat bounce'. There is inevitably a quick bounce back whenever a catalyst propels a stock (like a merger rumour or new CEO) but a dead cat is a dead cat and it will fall back down. A dud is a dud, right?

Same in sports. The new coach comes roaring in with his new methods and players tend to respond for a while. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Call it dead-coach bounce. Or dean man walking...or skating. Depending on the sport.

Teams (and corporations for that matter) who constantly shuffle management around usually remain in the same spot. They run a lot but remain at the same point. Teams that show patience tend to be successful ones.

Bobby Cox is a long-serving manager with the Atlanta Braves. Would the Braves have necessarily done better had he been released? Probably not. How many years did Connie Mack manage? This is just me but doesn't a long tenured coach exude credibility? In times of the pampered athlete, a player coming into a team where he knows the fans support the coach and management helps to maintain the balance of power in favour of the coach as it should be. If the player doesn't like this he can take the proverbial 'hike.'

We see the 'we need a change' bit in political culture also. I could have sworn that the minute Bush and Harper were elected in their respective countries, calls for change were immediate. 'Change' in this instance meant 'we don't like these two so get them out.' It seemed that way anyway. Harper barely had time to even read the portfolio on Chretien before some began to ponder the 'need for change' in Canada. 45 years of liberal Trudeauism and 8 Mulroneyism, meant that Harperism had no chance.

It's the same in employment. People always want a change. One month into a job they are yearning for a vacation. They say that before the age of 35 we will have changed our jobs 5 times. The long career with one company is now a thing of the past. Obviously, this sort of stability has taken the back seat to a new type of worker who wants more out of him or herself. Or that they need 'a change' a little too often. For those who are confused, Oscar Wilde once said, "it is better to be financially stable than interesting." Most hate what they are doing but what change to make?

Change is good but under the right conditions. You can't change for the sake of it. Don't change a job for a lateral move. Don't fire a coach if the successor is not a better choice (who could replace Joe Torre?) Don't scream for change without giving a chance to someone.

We may just get what we don't want.