Many conversations about change @churchofengland focus on “mindset”, “structure” or “culture.” But if we examine how preferment actually works, we see that “advancement” depends on being recognised and affirmed by those already in authority. Over time, that creates a quiet but powerful signal: Be supportive. Be safe. Don’t push too hard. No one has to say it explicitly. People just learn it. It creates at its absolute worst a culture of sycophancy. Over time those learned behaviors take on the feeling of wisdom, “good judgement,” and “faithfulness” and the barometer of the “orthodoxy” required of those who will lead in the next generation. Then those same people become the ones discerning and selecting this next generation too….. So the system doesn’t just reward certain behaviours but it also it reproduces them. As @MartynPercy argues in this incisive article that is not necessarily because anyone intends it to, but because the installation (structures, incentives, expectations) shapes how people think and act within it. Moments of leadership transition, like the installation of a new Archbishop, often raise hopes for change. But installation theory poses a much harder question: What if the deeper issue isn’t the individual, but the system they inherit and operate within? That has real implications for how the Church responds to: • safeguarding and abuse • whose voices are heard or sidelined • and how questions of fuller inclusion are handled If the underlying conditions don’t change, the outcomes probably won’t either and it really doesn’t matter who is in post. For a deeper exploration of this idea, this article is well worth reading: New Installation, Same Old Problems | Journal of Anglican Studies | Cambridge Core