ACCOMPLISHING CHANGE:

WHIRLWIND OR INCREMENTAL

Where proponents of the art of the incremental might go so far as to say "Let's hire a new CEO and get this whole company moving in the right direction from the top down," the proponents of "Sweeping Change" might go a step further. They might go to the mountain top and reassess, at the most fundamental level, whether the company is in the right business at all.

There are two definite schools of thought about how to get things accomplished in organizations, or even your own small business. One credo, is "Hit the ground running. Make sweeping changes from the first moment, when your authority won't be challenged." A diametrically opposing view is to "Take it slow. Make small changes, bit by bit. Practice the art of the incremental."

There is probably something to be said for each view, given a particular set of circumstances.

If you think back to what you've read about the first days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson's first 100 days of presidency, or the actions of Abraham Lincoln immediately after the secession, they all made bold, sweeping changes, literally altering the make-up of the nation's basic structures, moving swiftly with consummate leadership. It might be said that the country was in crisis on each of these occasions but it is equally true that every change of power, even a change in a business and even in a small business, is a form of crisis.

It has been noted that the Chinese symbol for crisis is made up of two equal parts: danger and opportunity. Leaders, as well as forceful managers, must seize the opportunity.

The theory behind the "Sweeping Change" credo is that no one will resist you when you first step into a job. No one knows precisely what to expect, they don't have you pinned down to a routine or a certain set of characteristics, so people will tend to go along with whatever change you initiate in the beginning. So, the theory goes, don't waste your honeymoon period moving the file cabinets. Use bold, big strokes to recreate and redirect the entire organization.

The opposing theory, the art of the incremental, espouses a different view. It is similar to the answer to "How do you eat an elephant?" ----- "One bite at a time". Or the maxim "You can't solve all your problems at once, you have to make them line up for you." The art of the incremental is often favored in the growth of a company, in that you don't try to do everything at once, you do one thing well, then add another. It is also used in hiring people, where some believe you can change the entire make up of a company, just by the cumulative effect of your hiring decisions.

The art of the incremental is also favored by some when it comes to setting about changing an entire organization from top to bottom. Suppose an organization has become sluggish and lackluster, that it has few controls, no star performers, no winning products. Proponents of the art of the incremental might say, "Let's change the accounting system and put in better controls" or "Let's hire a new Director of Sales." They might even say "Let's hire a new CEO and get this whole company moving in the right direction from the top down," and the "Sweeping Change" believers, no doubt, would agree.

But the proponents of "Sweeping Change" might go a step further. They might go to the mountain top and reassess, at the most fundamental level, whether the company is in the right business at all. Are they selling buggy whips when the auto has arrived or word processers after the dawn of the PC age? Have they already been toasted by a competitor and are surviving in a coma or just haven't fallen down yet. ( Like Bruce Willis in Sixth Sense, they could already be dead and just don't know it.)

Even if the "Sweeping Change" proponents decide the organization is, in fact, alive, not terminal just anemic, they still might propose to change, not only the CEO, but the strategy, positioning, processes, product, marketing or locale of the company. In other words, if the situation looked as if it were in need of change, they would look first, if only to rule out, systemic change, from the root up.

There are criticisms of both approaches. Some think of the incremental as too timid, too little, therefore in danger of being too late. Others regard the "Sweeping Change" proponents as being, metaphorically, like Casey at the Bat, a grand stander who tries to do too much too soon, who swings for the fences and risks striking out because he won't follow the discipline of hitting a few consistent singles or doubles, putting points on the board, if not gathering glory.

It seems, however, your best choice of strategies really depends on how much power you wield in an organization. If your power is limited or suspect.... perhaps the old guard are casting a wary eye in your direction, since there might be rumblings you could be a change agent.....then your best choice might be the art of the incremental. It is, after all, almost a stealth mode. Move slowly, without fanfare, with diplomacy and tact or, at least, discretion and silence, changing one thing at a time. Start with the most crucial, which is always management. Business failure is almost always management failure, since other failures stem from management's inability to foresee or prevent them. Over the course of time, small changes like grains of sand, will change the entire landscape.

If you have power, boldness and vision, go for the "Sweeping Change". Study the problems but don't study them to death. Usually the problems are quite apparent, even to the janitor. Problems don't get addressed, not because they're not evident but because people have a vested interest in the status quo ( like being the less than competent CEO who doesn't wish to be replaced); they may be actually benefiting from the problem ( by making more money or having larger staffs or expense accounts than they should, or, heaven forbid, they may be actually making a profit from the companies losses by some form of pay back which accrues to them from suppliers or clients); they're afraid of losing their paycheck; or they're caught like a deer in the headlights by the enormity of the problem.

It doesn't really matter why people in the company have let the problem continue. Your job is to fix it as fast as you possibly can. In Asian countries, when an airplane crashes the Chairman of the Airline immediately resigns. Americans are not quite that inculcated with the concept of honor it seems, or at least not when it comes to business. But, don't concern yourself with what the architects of the disaster decide to do in a crisis. If your company is about to crash, don't stop to mull over the niceties, push the old pilot out the cargo door ( or at least into the cargo hold) and take over the cockpit and controls before you hit the mountain.

Of course, all problems are not as apparent as that and neither are their solutions. But, with diligence and persistence, most problems can be fixed or the company can be repositioned or re-invented in another industry, where rapid growth is more likely.

The most likely scenario is that either you will be brought in from outside, because change is clearly needed, in which case you can introduce bold, sweeping change. Or you will have risen up from the inside and singled out for leadership because someone has finally caught on that you have been initiating incremental change, and those may have been the only right moves in a sea of mistakes and poor decisions. In this case, you now will be in position to make bold, sweeping change yourself. And don't hesitate to do it. Like the Irish tale John F. Kennedy related when he made the decision to put a man on the moon, "Just throw your cap over the wall, then you will be forced to follow." Act boldly. There is magic in new beginnings.