You Say You Want A Revolution: Change Overhaul

Evolution and revolution. One letter difference, yet a dictionary apart. Evolution, culturally, is the topic of the nature-nurture debate, the intelligent design question, and the perpetual chicken-and-egg paradox (which was recently solved, and the verdict: foul beats embryo). Revolution, on the other hand, covers a large war between the British and the American people and that concept for which the Beatles musically crusaded. Evolution suggests that homo sapiens slid into homo erectus, and revolution suggests coup d’etat. Evolution is gradual; revolution is sudden. Given the general aversion to jarring and quick adaptation, organizations tend toward evolutionary change rather than revolutionary. Most of the time, the organization likes the direction they’re moving in, and prefers making small changes to tweak the system.

Often, though, the goal becomes to change the deep structure of the organization. Sometimes, it’s the company culture that needs to be overhauled. Evolutionary change is not conducive to this kind of alteration. Typically, revolutionary change of this nature only occurs when there is a crisis in the company that requires immediate attention. Rarely does the company itself decide to undergo revolutionary change; it almost always occurs based on external factors, having someone on the outside advise a company how to handle a catastrophic situation. Revolutionary change is terrifying to people who are change-averse, as it leaves very little of anything familiar, and instead aims to revolutionize (for lack of a better word) the company as a whole.

What characterizes revolutionary change? For one, it’s slow rather than rapid. Obviously a complete renovation of company culture will take some time, despite the fact that Mary Poppins makes it look as though it only requires a snap of the fingers. It is non-linear, tending toward a more cyclical pattern due to the trial and error it involves. There is a mixture of failure and success inherent in revolutionary change. And to upper management, the scariest characteristic of revolutionary change is its targeting of central parts of the organization and the most powerful units as opposed to the periphery. At the risk of outdating myself with this metaphor, it’s a game of Battleship, sticking white pegs on the grid using your misses to earn you a hit, and restrategizing after every sunk ship.

The question is: why should companies aim toward revolutionary change? It’s true that it would be foolish to undergo an overhaul every time something needed to be fixed. But why is their aversion to such change potentially harmful?

It might help to look to the barriers to revolutionary change to determine the answer to the question, the first of which is single-minded cognition on the part of the employees. The thought process of the organization is most likely unified, so chances are it’s unlikely they’ll consider changing company culture. If they’re used to doing things a certain way, why would it occur to them to revolutionize? Part of embracing revolutionary change is learning to think laterally, not linearly. It might be worthwhile to look outside of your company’s practices and culture to see how other cultures function. Gaining perspective is a great way to compile a list of best practices for your own organization and begin to improve upon existing cultural tendencies.

Another comes from the benefits to the organization for staying the same. An organization, like an organism, tends toward homeostasis, and for the most part it’s beneficial NOT to change. With the attention toward stakeholders and the desire to provide consistent service, change makes an organization look schizophrenic if not attacked constructively. But the problem is that these benefits quell any motivation that individuals might have to approach change that might be more beneficial than homeostasis. Weaving flexibility into an organizational fabric will in and of itself require revolutionary change, but it can ensure that in the future, your organization won’t stall out in the face of adaptation. Your stakeholders and clientele will recognize that your organization’s attitude toward change is positive, and they–and you–won’t be thrown if it comes time to make alterations.

The idea is not to make it so the organization is constantly changing, because that can hurt your company’s image. Being able to embrace revolutionary change is a means of being ready and willing in the event that a cultural change becomes desirable. Although evolution is a good way to make small changes and ease individuals into the change process, sometimes the change a company needs involves a larger scope.

When you talk about destruction, though, don’t you know that you can count me out?

To our readers: what is your attitude toward revolutionary change? When is it (not) necessary?