Mathew and Debbie are discussing incremental change, and hidden change.
Peter Drucker has recently said the the _theory_ of re-engineering was
good, but the way most companies implemented it was poor. They conducted
a radical reorganization without doing the assessment that points out how
and where to re-engineer.
My experience is that incremental and step change can be synergistic, but
their ability to be so is dependent on how they are used. Attempts at
incremental change are great little experiments, but you have to make a
determined effort to learn from them. Too often, errors or failures are
written off without the necessary introspection about the why of it.
Without this introspection corporately or departmentally, then the
experiment really was a failure. The failure of an incremental change is
not a failure. The failure to learn from it is the ultimate failure.
Through the experiments of incremental change, one can understand the
outlines of the constraints in the current business model. Once you reach
a point of sufficient understanding, then it is time for a step change.
As Drucker said, any step change before this is unlkely to yield the
needed gains.
Hidden incremental changes allow one to experiment with less personal
risk. There are two outcomes of this, a good one and a bad one. The good
one is that if you are legitimately at risk in your organization from the
negative consequences of a failed incremental change, then protecting
yourself is an appropriate and even necessary tactic.
The bad news is that widespread learning from a hidden incremental change
is not possible. Hidden incremental changes can therefore never build the
understanding necessary for a well-considered step change.
Peoples' perceptions of being at risk are in general born of three
phenomena. First, they legitimately are at risk. In this case, hidden
action is appropriate, or finding another job is appropriate. Second,
second, they do not have adequate analytical or communication skills to
build support for a not-hidden change, so they choose to hide it. Third,
they have an inborn -- as opposed to externally-driven -- fear of failure,
so they practice self-protection.
The middle group -- those with inadequate communication or analytical
skills -- tend to blame their problem on management, the same as the first
group does. The difference is the first group has a real problem with
dysfunctional management, but the second group has a perceived problem.
Their perception is very likely hindering their ability to solve the
problem which they own.
--Rol Fessenden LL Bean 76234.3636@compuserve.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>