Should we even be in this space? Do we offer a new product or service? Should we completely change our approach? Do we sell? Do we acquire? …
As most business leaders instinctively know, but often neglect to do, it’s important to periodically step back from the daily treadmill of activity and re-evaluate the foundational elements of vision and strategy. However, as the existential nature of the questions above imply, the possible answers can be quite transformational, or even disruptive.
Not surprisingly these considerations often lead to a combination of excitement about visionary opportunities, and concern about the risk of undermining (or destabilizing) current success. While much has been written on the logical step-by-step process for defining strategy, I’d like to focus instead on the “right…& wrong” mindset (or perspective) with which to approach these questions and navigate the emotional roller coaster of excitement and concern. In this first post on the topic, let’s deal with two common “wrong perspectives:”
I have to be able to quantify it precisely...
The reason this is a fundamentally wrong perspective is that it reduces disruptive change to a math problem. As a previous boss once said to me, “the values of the most impactful and far-reaching improvements are often the most impossible – and pointless – to quantify.”
Why? Because the transformation is so far reaching that it’s impossible to capture all of its effects, both primary and secondary (I would argue that the secondary effects are frequently more impactful than the primary – since they’re often “multiplier effects” – ex. culture, organization, supplier, customer, community, etc.).
If this is true, think about the converse. If something can be tightly and accurately bounded with numbers, it likely is not that disruptive, or its impact is under-estimated. Does this mean one shouldn’t do the numbers? No. But it should not be the primary driver of the decision for a transformational/disruptive change, since the calculation, by definition, is wrong.
Additionally, as many examples show, there is no guarantee that successful implementation will actually make a business come out financially ahead of where it is today. Should a change still be considered? Yes – this will be addressed in another post (hint: change is often more about survival than financial success).
It’ll keep the organization on its toes…
Far too often leaders buy into the flawed thinking that a way to keep their organizations energized is to “create” change just to “shake things up.” These leaders clearly are in the wrong roles and are not responsibly performing their leadership duty.
Why, such a harsh judgment? In the ever-changing world in which we live, there are enough opportunities and threats confronting the organization without the need to manufacture artificial versions of them. Further, it is a waste of the organization’s innate capacity and ability to change.
What does this mean? Just as a doctor prescribes a certain dosage of medicine to improve a patient’s health, people and organizations have a certain dosage of change they can absorb with an intended positive effect. Beyond this level, however, it becomes dangerous and counterproductive – a state of overdose. In this state people become destabilized, desensitized, calloused or even completely apathetic.
While the threshold of overdose is different for each organization, the important thing is to consider it carefully in introducing change for an intentional purpose, not wasting it on “change for change” sake.
We all have a predisposition when we approach certain situations – especially radical change. As you consider the organization you lead, have you considered your predisposed mindset to change? Is there a chance you may fallen into one of the traps listed above?
I read a lot of interesting posts here. Probably you spend a lot of
time writing, i know how to save you a lot of
work, there is an online tool that creates
unique, google friendly posts in minutes, just search in google – laranitas free
content