Sooner or later you have to decide on whether change happens as a big bang or a series of smaller changes. The theory that we all know is that change is hard and people dislike change. The problem is that the theory is wrong. We all like change IF we think it is good for us otherwise we would still be living with our parents or eating the same mayonnaise as we did when we were children (ok, I am guilty).
Big Bang? If you haven’t sold the change and therefore those that will be impacted don’t believe it will be of value for them . . . I would consider the big bang approach. In the big bang approach you have a chance to get all of the changes in place before resistance can solidify.
An incremental approach make sense when you can use one change to sell another. This approach works best when you spend the time and effort needed to sell the value of the first few changes and then let the results prove your integrity.
January 21, 2013 at 12:36 pm
Evolution is intuitively less risky than revolution. However if the inertia and resistance to change in the organisation is preventing necessary change (if we keep doing what we’re doing we’ll keep getting what we’re getting and we don’t want that) then revolution (big bang) is the only alternative.
The challenge to getting buy in [to change] is that the audience must be willing to listen. They will not do that until they recognise that they have a problem and you might have a solution. The problem has to be causing sufficient “pain” before that will happen.
January 21, 2013 at 3:35 pm
A good argument for the big bang approach to change. In my estimation, the choice boils down to reading the audience. I have found that many small steps including steps that build credibility are generally more effective but generally does not translate to always.