Seth Godin writes “Do
you have to be anti-change to be pro-business?”
He lists several companies
that fought change (and government regulations) to preserve the status
quo.
But my favorite part is at
the end:
“The opportunities kick in
when an external force requires a
brand new story…
It’s easy to argue against
change. It disheartens shareholders and even employees. But external change is the most likely
lever of growth, because it puts you back on the agenda of attention.”
[Emphasis added]
Unfortunately, I think
Seth’s right, external change is the
likely lever of growth. Most companies
want to ride out the current model until they’re forced to change.
Without a significant
external force, they have no motivation to create change and often fight it
when it becomes inevitable or is already present.
But why don’t we innovate
and initiate changes ourselves?
Radical innovation or
participation in emerging markets is unsure and requires experimentation. If a corporate culture is built on a well
known market, long term experimentation is not the norm.
Failure is incorrectly
defined as not attaining the expected results. It should be defined as not learning anything from an experiment or
continually repeating the same mistakes.
Established companies have
established processes and risk tolerances that are often not conducive to
innovation.
Often companies attempt to
use their current staff to come up with radical new products while requiring
them to support existing products.
- Linkage to the current products and processes can constrain their ability to create something new.
- Radical innovation as a “side-job” is often unrealistic.
- Current staff has a vested interest in preserving the status quo.
- Staff may be “tainted” by their in depth knowledge of the current structure. At minimum, create a team that includes both people knowledgeable about the current business and those with radically different experiences – and put them on an even playing field.
Learning is uncomfortable. New product development is uncertain.
Anytime we need to change,
we get scared and most of us run away until we have no choice!
Real-Life Change: Offer More Time, Less Judgment
We Know You Do, But Now You Have To Effective in November, you will have to work 40 hours per week for 40 hours pay. Huh? I spent Wednesday and Thursday of this week working with a client on that
Nancy and Dave –
It’s interesting how the external forces that Seth described (and I started to pick up on) were market forces that caused a company to realize that change was needed – and now the conversation has evolved to “external forces” from the outside in terms of people that are brought in to help effect that change internally.
Thanks for coming by and commenting!
Ann
Interesting topic. The few businesses that have built a continual dialogue about improvement into their culture, are the few that may not require outside assistance to change.
However, bringing an “external force” to a company is often a viable and profitable option because of the fresh insights, perspectives, and inspiration they are likely to bring to a company. And they know how to sell employees on the benefits of a new way to do things.
Nice post. It’s good that there are external forces that requires companies to change, otherwise they would be stuck without any development. Even though companies are not interested in risking their productivity with change, development is still an important factor.
Great post, Dick. It’s as if we’re in a Catch 22 here. We must individually and internally decide to change and take action to do so – no one can convince or force us. Yet, the impetus for change is often an external lever – especially in the corporate world. It’s very rare that one does decide that your distant ant hill is worth watching until they have an infestation!
Great post, Ann. Thanks to Seth for leading me to you. Thank you for inspiring me to post at my own blog.
My take on this: systemic change is indisputable, pervasive, and begins inside people and organizations. The illusion of stability and status quo results from having too limited a perspective, and too little time (or patience) to see the change happening. It’s like declaring a distant ant hill to be lifeless.
–Dick
Helen-
Yes it is normal for us to protect our existence. It’s just ironic that too much “protection” is what often causes our demise!
I suppose it’s all in how we define our existence. Protecting our existing products and business models no matter what is happening in the world around us is probably not a good way to go.
Trying to insure our viability as an enterprise is certainly reasonable.
Thanks for commenting!!!
Ann
That’s right. Making an internal change might result to failures and it’s better if companies don’t change. It’s normal for companies to protect it’s existence and prevent any failures.
How true! I only mentioned that last part because sometimes companies do hire some people from the outside, but put them in subordinate positions with limited ability to impact decisions. So the usual suspects still have the reigns and nothing changes!
Good post, Ann. Yes, companies tend to make the effort only when pushed.
Ah, and who’s going to hire the people who are different? And put them on an even playing field!