Lampedusa's Razor
Peter de Jager is a provocative Speaker, Writer and Consultant. His primary focus in on how we manage change, technology and the future.
In addition to speaking at conferences worldwide, he also writes monthly columns for CIO Magazine and Computerworld Canada.
His goal is always to question what we think is so, and in so doing perhaps open up new opportunities.
If you'd like permission to reprint any of Peter's articles, please contact him directly.
You can contact him at
pdejager@technobility.com
Or sign the Guest Book and he'll get back to you.
"Beware of con artists!" is good advice, especially if they can
jeopardize that which we value. How good are we at recognizing a scam when
it crosses our path? Here's one that's making its way through corporate
corridors;
"Change
is good, and resistance is bad."
Unquestioning acceptance of that
advice will get you into deep, perhaps catastrophic, trouble. Not all
change is good, and resisting bad change is more than a good idea, it's
the act of a responsible employee (or citizen).
This the
great trap for those who embrace the idea that we must change or die.
Unless we find some way to distinguish between good and bad change, we are
compelled to change when faced with each and every innovation.
You can
find a good example of this failure in Lewis Carroll's "Through the
Looking Glass", where there is sad character known as the White
Knight, who's taken the advice "Change is good" too literally.
The White
Knight believes in embracing anything that's new. His mistake is to accept
that all change is mandatory.
His sturdy horse is festooned with gadgets. There's a small box in which
he keeps his sandwiches, but it's turned upside down, "so that the
rain can't get in" he says proudly. Until Alice points out that the
sandwiches have fallen out, he was totally unaware of this significant
flaw.
He's also attached a beehive to the horse in the
hope that bees will take up house and provide honey; not realizing bees
never set up house on a moving horse. And then there's the mousetrap he's
strapped on the horse's back to keep the mice away, and the fancy anklets
on his hooves to keep away the sharks. Both of which seem to be working...
Yes we
must change, otherwise our organizations fall so far behind the
competition that we lose effectiveness and fade into obsolescence. On the
other hand, to embrace every change is the highway to chaos.
Our
problem, despite the many dinosaurs lumbering in the tar pits of
yesterday, is not the lack of recognition that change is necessary. It is
that there is far too much change to choose from, we suffer from an
abundance of choice and a shortage of judgment.
Organizations
must become adept at three seemingly contradictory skills. We must become
brilliantly effective at resisting bad change, equally effective at
embracing good change and wise enough to decide between these two
alternatives.
In case
you missed my outrageous statement, I'll repeat it in its pure form;
Organizations must become
brilliantly effective at resisting Change.
We should
not and must not, embrace all the change placed before us.
"But we must change!" is the cry from the back of the room.
Yes, I agree. We must change, otherwise the world will pass us by, but the
statement "Change is good", does not advise what type of change is good... it even suggests that 'all' change is
good. And that's the problem. "Change" is not by definition
"good", it merely represents a difference between what was and
what is. A better restatement of this corporate mantra might be;
"Some
Change is good, and sometimes resistance is necessary."
Or... if you value a quote more when it comes from someone famous,
<grin> here's what Viscount Falkland had to say about this;
"When it is not
necessary to change, it is necessary not to change."
All of this is fine, but there's a snag. How do we distinguish the good from the bad? Since I've been using
quotes to power this article, let's try another one. Giuseppe di Lampedusa
was a part time astronomer and Sicilian Prince, he stated;
“If
things are to remain the same, things will have to change."
This humorous and seemingly self contradictory quip contains more wisdom
than is apparent at first glance.
To better
see the idea snuggled inside Lampedusa's quote it is worthwhile dissecting it a
little bit.
“If
things1
are to remain the same, things2
will have to change."
things1 – Refers
to that which is important to our mandate. These are the things which are
of value to us, our constituents, and our superiors... even if it is not
immediately obvious that they are of value to us.
things2 – Refers
to all the other stuff that surrounds us, stuff we might have become
attached to, but which in the final analysis, contributes little to the
achievement of things1.
That's
the key, by slicing the status quo into those two categories; Lampedusa
provides us a means by which to examine the value of any change in front
of us. Does the proposed change
reinforce, support or extend a previously established organizational
objective or personal value? If it doesn't, then enthusiastic
acceptance is incorrect, improper and ill-advised. To paraphrase Lampedusa;
"To embrace what we
value, we must release what we don't."
These
then are the two steps towards rational change. Identify what is valuable
to us, and then measure every proposed change against what we have found.
Identify,
as clearly as possible, why we're here. What exactly is the role of our
organization, or our life, and what must we do to continue fulfilling that
role? We can give this a variety of labels, from "Statement of
Purpose" to "Vision Statement" to "Services
Offered" and even to "that which makes us happy without us even
knowing it". It doesn't really matter what we call this as long as it
becomes something we believe in, and against which we can measure all
proposed changes.
The
second step is to determine how the proposed change will fit into the
context of our organization. In other words, what must change in order to
protect what we value? If you've made it this far, then you are well into
the first stages of implementing the change.
You now
know why the change is necessary. i.e. what core values it is designed to
protect, support or extend. This knowledge, properly communicated, will go
a long way to reducing resistance to the proposed change, especially if
you are willing to make public all the information which went into your
decision. Nothing is more effective at reducing resistance to change than
full disclosure... except perhaps being involved in the actual decision
making process itself.
You now
also have some idea what impact it will have on your organization. i.e.
What will have to change to accommodate this change. With all of this in
hand, changing isn't too difficult.
The issue
of change is tricky. On one hand you cannot avoid all change; on the other
hand, you cannot embrace all change. This means we must resist the bad,
embrace the good and know the difference.
Good
luck.
© 2005,
Peter de Jager – Peter is passionate about change, how it affects both
individuals and organizations and allows them to grow and prosper. To contact him, and
host internal seminars on Change Management visit www.technobility.com
For
reprint permissions click here.
Resources: