Timing Can Make or Break Culture Change

We often hear that timing is everything when it comes to change. The right moment can open a door; the wrong one can slam it shut. But what does it mean to say that timing matters? Is timing simply beyond our control—or can savvy changemakers use it to their advantage?

Trevor Noah recently discussed the power of timing with former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who published a new memoir called The Perilous Fight. Noah reflected on the backlash Kaepernick faced when he protested fatal police shootings of unarmed Black Americans in 2016, by first sitting and then kneeling during the national anthem:

“You were almost, like, ahead of the curve… The timing of when you were doing it made it so that you didn’t have the cover of the collective… You were the one who sticks your head up first.”

Kaepernick sought to inspire change by calling attention to racial disparities in how police use force. At the time, he faced intense scrutiny from both the National Football League (NFL) and segments of the public, which essentially derailed his football career. Yet less than four years later, the issues Kaepernick hoped to advance moved to the center of a nationwide conversation about race and systemic inequality. As Noah points out, Kaepernick’s actions were “ahead of the curve.” What can his experience teach us about why timing matters?

What contextual factors help or hinder culture change?

Situations like the one Kaepernick faced illustrate why the final principle in the intentional culture change framework we’ve been exploring in this series, principle number seven, is that timing matters. Timing matters because it can either foster or impede the social and psychological conditions that support change. Kaepernick acted when he felt the time was right, but the wider culture was resistant—and he paid a significant price.

Many kinds of contextual factors can either block or bolster efforts to change culture. “Never waste a good crisis” is a truism in business and politics. Research shows that crises (like the COVID-19 pandemic), transitions (like changes in leadership), and societal shifts (such as declining institutional trust) can create opportunities for change or reinforce resistance. So, too, can tipping points, like the rapid adoption of generative AI, and major events, like natural disasters. Of course, some of these factors are more predictable than others. But just because they’re difficult to predict doesn’t mean we can’t strategize and prepare.

On the plus side, timing can create openings to design and implement new policies or increase public support for change. One way this happens is when a series of “favorable” conditions align across the culture cycle. For instance, in recent years, public support for greater police accountability, the availability of new technologies, and government funding (at the individual, interaction, and institution levels) helped make police body-worn cameras widespread. Around 80 percent of law enforcement agencies nationwide now use them.

While openings can widen, they can also narrow again. Consider Kaepernick’s case. Less than four years after his protest began, the viral video of George Floyd’s death, years of organizing around other high-profile police killings, and the unusual conditions created by pandemic lockdowns helped generate unprecedented public attention and participation. The resulting nationwide protests, amplified through social and traditional media, contributed to increased public support for police reform. Yet support for these changes did not endure. Within a few years, a backlash emerged among politicians, policymakers, and communities across the country, leading to an expansion of police budgets, rollbacks of reforms and restrictions, and reduced oversight.

Timing, at its best, provides openings to change attitudes, behaviors, and policies—through shifts in perceived norms, identities, emotions, beliefs about what is possible, and individual and collective efficacy. These social psychological processes can help spread new ideas and behaviors and mobilize collective action.

Pay attention to the broader context—and adapt accordingly

Whether the surrounding conditions are helpful or harmful, savvy changemakers pay attention to the broader context and adapt their approaches accordingly. When mapping out a culture change strategy, ask: What contextual factors may help or hinder culture change? While you can’t anticipate everything, you can develop a nimble mindset and build adaptability into your approach.

Changemakers can also use a variety of psychologically smart strategies to prepare stakeholders for change. For instance, leaders can foster a shared sense that change is possible and needed—or at least unavoidable—and can produce positive outcomes. They can communicate a clear vision of where the changes are headed and ensure that their messages reach key audiences. They can also frame change efforts positively rather than negatively—for example, promoting the benefits of electric vehicles (“quiet is power”) rather than emphasizing the drawbacks of gas-powered cars (“ditch the fumes”).

The right conditions can build momentum for culture change, but these conditions often don’t arise on their own. Changemakers can’t control when the broader culture will be ready, but they can help build that readiness—and they can use “accidents” of good timing to advance the change they seek. Those who seem “ahead of the curve,” like Kaepernick, may also be helping to bend it. So ask yourself: What can I do and when should I do it? And what am I willing to risk?

References