Pavlo Lushyn, DPsy,
Chair of Psychology Department,
University Of Educational Management,
NAPSU, Kiyv.


This piece is an attempt to present an ecopsychological and socio-cultural reinterpretation of the model for surviving change presented in the best selling book Who Moved My Cheese? by Spencer Johnson. The reinterpretation is based on the constructivist notion that any personal or social transformation can be understood as a change in core metaphors. Research in the sphere of personal change also indicates that the latter is always traumatic, only partially predictable, irreversible, non-linear, and social in nature.
Johnson’s is a popular book, described as capable of being “read and understood quickly by everyone who wants to succeed in these changing times.” Johnson--who holds a B.A. in psychology from the University of Southern California, an M.D. degree from the Royal College of Surgeons, and clerkship at the Harvard Medical School and the Mayo Clinic--has been referred to as “the best there is at taking complex subjects and presenting simple solutions that work.” His books are available in twenty-six languages.
Who Moved My Cheese? is a parable that illustrates a profound truth—what we will call a “core metaphor”--about the nature of change. It is a story about four characters who live in a “maze” and look for the “cheese” they need in order to nourish them and make them happy. Two are mice--Sniff who sniffs out change early, and Scurry, who scurries into action. The other two are “little people” (mouse sized)—Haw, who learns to adapt in time when he sees change will lead to something better; and Hem, who denies and resists change in fear it will lead to something worse. These four characters reflect corresponding models of survival: “alarmists” or “predictors”, who sense the forthcoming change and make decisions early; “activists” or “pragmatists,” who respond briskly to the challenging context that change represents; “rationalists” who must think through the change before reacting; and “conservatives” or “stagnators,” who want to reverse the irreversible process of change. Johnson claims that the best possible strategy for personal and social survival are the behavioral approaches of “alarmism” and “pragmatism”. Our hypothesis is that all four models have their advantages and disadvantages, and each of them is motivated by the basic urge to survive in his or her unique way. We will explore this disagreement further by analyzing the basic semantic components of the parable.
“Cheese” is a metaphor for what one wants in life – be it a job, a relationship, money, freedom, health, recognition, or even a regular activity, like jogging or golf. “The Maze” is where you look for what you want – be it your place of work, family, etc. The characters represent persons faced with unexpected change. The mice “possessed only simple rodent brains, but good instincts” (Johnson, p.26). They usually went into the maze to search for Cheese, which is why its disappearance did not surprise them. “Sniff and Scurry continued to wake early every day and race through the maze, always following the same route.” (Johnson, p.28) They started searching for new cheese as soon as they discovered the disappearance of the old one. Rather than attempt to figure out any deep reasons for the cheese’s disappearance, they simply searched for it. “One morning they arrived at Cheese Station C and discovered there was no Cheese. They weren’t surprised. Since Sniff and Scurry had noticed the supply of cheese had been getting smaller every day, they were prepared for the inevitable and knew instinctively what to do….The mice didn’t overanalyze things. To the mice the problem and the answer were both simple. The situation at Cheese Station C had changed. So, Sniff and Scurry decided to change.” (Johnson, p.32) Finally, after searching out several small supplies of cheese, they came upon a large one, and the problem was solved. The mice did reproductive/mechanical work cheerfully every day; they were acting according to the pragmatic model of behavior.
Unlike the mice, the “little people” acted irrationally. Instead of changing themselves as the situation changed, they put a great deal of emphasis on their emotional state. They were upset by the situation. ”They ranted and raved at the injustice of it all. Haw started to get depressed.” (Johnson, p.35) They returned to the same place every day to see if the cheese had returned. They searched for reasons for what had happened, analyzing the situation over and over again with their “complicated brain with its huge belief system” (Johnson, p.37). Eventually, one of them dealt with it successfully; he entered the maze, and after a long and exhaustive search, found some cheese. He thoughtfully saved some for his obsessive friend Hem, who had not gone with him, hoping instead to find his old cheese some day. Thus, the “little people” acted like irrational, theoretically-driven beings who, faced with new contexts, take time to think but not to act.
We see a contradiction in his story, which the following analysis is an attempt at resolving. The contradiction is based on the fact that all three types—pragmatists, rationalists, and conservatives—achieve the same result, if in different ways. If this is the case, why does the author seem to be inclined to support and promote the pragmatic and rational types? As our starting point we took the concepts of Cheese and Happiness.
If cheese represents one’s goal in life—whether vocational, relational, financial, health-related, etc.—then happiness is the moment at which the goal is achieved: the moment at which one gets the job, establishes the relation, gets recognition or money, etc. Happiness is here experienced as a moment in time, a culmination. An alternative model understands happiness as the experience of a constant change of goals and their means of achievement. The former model is pursued by the little people, and the latter by the mice--and evidently by the author as well.
What are the psychological implications of the second concept (the pragmatic one)? Perhaps, as soon as our goal is achieved and we realize the moment of happiness, we even do not stop and evaluate our ability to be happy at all. How long will the new cheese last? Who moved the cheese? We doubt the genuineness of the moment of happiness and the possibility to enjoy it. The agent of the pragmatic model is rushing for new sources of happiness. Inherent, we would claim, in this model is an existential fear, and a tendency to underestimate our own ability to explore and complete the whole gestalt of human emotions (the positive and negative ones. In this model, the ability to grieve and part with the past seems to be dissociated or excluded from this emotional gestalt, as well as the capacity for reflexivity and critical thinking.
The alternative model, regarded by the author as inadequate, is the one pursued by Hem, the “little person” who displays apathy to change. He wishes past back, as he sees past as a model of his entire life which is stability, satisfaction, least made efforts for achieving these two. Thus, he seems to be indifferent to his future which might bring him uncertainty, pains taking in order to achieve satisfaction, and change, as a result of the two, which he fears within the mentioned perspectives. Hem turns out not to be ready for the search of new perspectives. In the table below we will try to reinterpret his behavior in more constructive terms. By this we assume that all the existing types – within the ecopsychological matrix – have or can have a positive function.




These interpretations of the behavior of Johnson’s Hem lead us to the conclusion that resistance to change as well as other types of seemingly negative behaviors might be considered as elements in a constructive process of socio-economic transformation of social and personal identity, in emergence of totally new patterns of life (Lushyn,1999).
One of the distinctive characteristics of successful paradigm change is the understanding – whether implicit or explicit – that survival lies in the inter-communication of different models of reality as well as different socio-economic systems, and that these models and systems constitute a global ecosystem. Since the change of the core metaphor is accompanied by chaotic disorganizational processes, no one undergoing changes of this magnitude can avoid emotional stress – either on the personal or the social level.



1. Johnson. S. (1982) Who Moved My Cheese? New York : G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1982.
2. Lushyn, P. (1999) On the Psychology of Man in Transition: How to Survive When Everything Goes Wrong. Kirovograd: Kod, 1999..
3. Lushyn, P. V. (2000) On the essence of the ecopsychological crisis or about the Little Hedgehogs who are indifferent to their destiny). Applied Psychology and Social Work, 2000, # 5, p. 5-8.