I think there are a couple of mindsets that drive change (as opposed to supporting the status quo, which tbh most people do.)
All of them understand that the status quo is malleable, that they are free to choose something other than what currently exists. In other words, they understand that rules are meant to serve man, and not the other way around.
I generally categorize these change-leaders in a couple of ways, but that's just what I've come up with for this post and shouldn't be considered hard and fast.
You've got your idealists, who don't accept the status quo and believe something better is possible. For the driving analogy, they could be the ones who thought up stop lights, turn signals and the like. (Somebody had to, and it was definitely a change to the status quo at the time.) The main pitfall here is that idealists are not always grounded in reality, so the changes they make can have unintended consequences.
In one of my classes we were asked - is it better to have a good plan and poor execution, or a poor plan with good execution?
Imho, the poor plan with good execution is better, because part of executing a plan is checking to see whether it's working... and adjusting if needed. If you have good execution, that bad plan will eventually keep getting better and better, until it does what you wanted it to. Otoh, a good plan is useless if it's not executed very well, and can even be counterproductive. Especially if poor execution means people believe the idea itself is bad. The point of all this? An idealist needs to have good execution skills, and the ability to adjust their plans if/when the results aren't what they wanted. It's too easy for an idealist to get caught up in their hoped for goal, and to forget or ignore any sign that things aren't working out as intended.
Somewhat related, and perhaps the same (though in my head they're different) are visionaries. Again, they see past the status quo, but imo the vision they have is a) not necessarily about ideals. I.e. they can have a vision of everyone owning a radio, or personal computer, or dishwasher. It's not about a 'better' world, per se, but it is a vision and b) they tend to be better at execution.
I think I make that distinction because we so often call people like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates 'visionaries', and effective execution is a key part of how they got there. Elon Musk, btw, could probably be tagged as a visionary. I remember when electric cars started being a thing, one of the problems with it was that there were not many places where you could publicly recharge your car. Elon Musk has not just built a bunch of electric cars, he's been working steadily to create an entire EV infrastructure to support them. I believe he's even been working to create solar paneled roofs, which would definitely boost the benefits of electrical vehicles.
There are other change-leaders, like the driver who uses the shoulder of the road to cut ahead of other cars, who know they're not bound by the rules... and seem to choose whatever benefits themselves. These guys are close cousins to the barracks-lawyers and rule-bend who don't really break the rules so much as twist and bend them in their favor. For these type of change-leaders, well... it's funny. From what I can tell, most of them probably don't think of themselves that way at all... or if they do, it's not for the same reasons. Why do I say that?
Because most of them would consider themselves 'realists'. That whole "I got mine, how you do?" attitude implies an acceptance that 'this is the way the world is'. They can be cynical, and worldly, and believe that 'it is what it is' and think that they're just doing what everyone else is doing.
Which means they don't really think they're changing anything. Or, if they are pushing a change, it's not about 'changing the world' (they know idealism is naive, and are too smart to believe that) so much as doing what it takes to win.
The problem here is again, the law of unintended consequences. They don't necessarily see the end result of the world their choices make, and don't necessarily want to live in that world any more than the rest of us do. They just think that that's already the way the world is, or that they're exploiting the loopholes in the world as it exists... as any smart person would do.
But they are changing the world, they live and breathe and model a world where that's just what people do, and in the process they make it more real.
There's one more pitfall I want to mention, one that can trip up any of these... from idealists to cynical realists, and in some ways it comes from their very strength... their willingness not to blindly accept the status quo.
See, in doing so there's a tendency to dismiss older rules and traditions as inconvenient, outdated, and irrelevant. Which sometimes is true, of course, and a necessary mindset for change. But traditions developed for a reason, they got passed down for a reason, and if you don't understand the purpose they served you can't accurately tell whether it's outdated, expired, and time to throw them away.
This is one area where, in another era, I would probably consider myself more conservative. Well, that's not quite true. It's just that I've seen far too many people do change for change's sake (or to look good to their boss) without actually improving anything. Like the receiving dock at my last work place, which was a prime target for 'lean six sigma' projects. The supervisor would come up with some plan to change the layout, supposedly to improve the efficiency with which product was received. Looks good to the boss, of course, since it shows you're always looking to improve the business (and have the execution skills to make it happen)... but if your change was really all that great, then why does another supervisor make another project out of redesigning the same area just four or five years later? Especially when there was no real system change to explain why a new layout would really be more efficient. If the first project had been done right, how could a new layout be more efficient? The same holds true almost everywhere, tbh, and I know some long time non-commissioned officers who internally roll their eyes as their leadership comes up with a 'new' plan that is pretty much exactly what they'd seen someone try five years prior.
If you're going to throw out the status quo, you should at least understand how that status quo came to be. It's sort of like a variation on Sun Tzu - "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
If you know the driving forces behind the status quo (as well as the other drivers of change) and know yourself, then you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself, but not the driving forces behind the status quo and other change drivers, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the driving forces behind the status quo, the other change drivers, nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
Eh, that makes it a bit too long to by pithy, but I hope you get the gist.
Anyways, the point is that people are sometimes so determined to make changes that they see any obstacle as a threat to be overcome... and in the process they may undo the hard work of prior generations. Like removing the checks and balances generations of people fought hard for, because they don't really understand why those checks and balances were created in the first place, and just see them as an obstacle in their way.
The pitfall here is this: there's a natural tendency to overcome obstacles by consolidating or amassing enough power to smash through them. Again, it can lead to unintended consequences, and some pretty bad ones at that. (I want to go into this more in another post, but this is probably enough for today. To remind myself of the thread I want to pick up - it'll touch on the endgame in chess.)
All of them understand that the status quo is malleable, that they are free to choose something other than what currently exists. In other words, they understand that rules are meant to serve man, and not the other way around.
I generally categorize these change-leaders in a couple of ways, but that's just what I've come up with for this post and shouldn't be considered hard and fast.
You've got your idealists, who don't accept the status quo and believe something better is possible. For the driving analogy, they could be the ones who thought up stop lights, turn signals and the like. (Somebody had to, and it was definitely a change to the status quo at the time.) The main pitfall here is that idealists are not always grounded in reality, so the changes they make can have unintended consequences.
In one of my classes we were asked - is it better to have a good plan and poor execution, or a poor plan with good execution?
Imho, the poor plan with good execution is better, because part of executing a plan is checking to see whether it's working... and adjusting if needed. If you have good execution, that bad plan will eventually keep getting better and better, until it does what you wanted it to. Otoh, a good plan is useless if it's not executed very well, and can even be counterproductive. Especially if poor execution means people believe the idea itself is bad. The point of all this? An idealist needs to have good execution skills, and the ability to adjust their plans if/when the results aren't what they wanted. It's too easy for an idealist to get caught up in their hoped for goal, and to forget or ignore any sign that things aren't working out as intended.
Somewhat related, and perhaps the same (though in my head they're different) are visionaries. Again, they see past the status quo, but imo the vision they have is a) not necessarily about ideals. I.e. they can have a vision of everyone owning a radio, or personal computer, or dishwasher. It's not about a 'better' world, per se, but it is a vision and b) they tend to be better at execution.
I think I make that distinction because we so often call people like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates 'visionaries', and effective execution is a key part of how they got there. Elon Musk, btw, could probably be tagged as a visionary. I remember when electric cars started being a thing, one of the problems with it was that there were not many places where you could publicly recharge your car. Elon Musk has not just built a bunch of electric cars, he's been working steadily to create an entire EV infrastructure to support them. I believe he's even been working to create solar paneled roofs, which would definitely boost the benefits of electrical vehicles.
There are other change-leaders, like the driver who uses the shoulder of the road to cut ahead of other cars, who know they're not bound by the rules... and seem to choose whatever benefits themselves. These guys are close cousins to the barracks-lawyers and rule-bend who don't really break the rules so much as twist and bend them in their favor. For these type of change-leaders, well... it's funny. From what I can tell, most of them probably don't think of themselves that way at all... or if they do, it's not for the same reasons. Why do I say that?
Because most of them would consider themselves 'realists'. That whole "I got mine, how you do?" attitude implies an acceptance that 'this is the way the world is'. They can be cynical, and worldly, and believe that 'it is what it is' and think that they're just doing what everyone else is doing.
Which means they don't really think they're changing anything. Or, if they are pushing a change, it's not about 'changing the world' (they know idealism is naive, and are too smart to believe that) so much as doing what it takes to win.
The problem here is again, the law of unintended consequences. They don't necessarily see the end result of the world their choices make, and don't necessarily want to live in that world any more than the rest of us do. They just think that that's already the way the world is, or that they're exploiting the loopholes in the world as it exists... as any smart person would do.
But they are changing the world, they live and breathe and model a world where that's just what people do, and in the process they make it more real.
There's one more pitfall I want to mention, one that can trip up any of these... from idealists to cynical realists, and in some ways it comes from their very strength... their willingness not to blindly accept the status quo.
See, in doing so there's a tendency to dismiss older rules and traditions as inconvenient, outdated, and irrelevant. Which sometimes is true, of course, and a necessary mindset for change. But traditions developed for a reason, they got passed down for a reason, and if you don't understand the purpose they served you can't accurately tell whether it's outdated, expired, and time to throw them away.
This is one area where, in another era, I would probably consider myself more conservative. Well, that's not quite true. It's just that I've seen far too many people do change for change's sake (or to look good to their boss) without actually improving anything. Like the receiving dock at my last work place, which was a prime target for 'lean six sigma' projects. The supervisor would come up with some plan to change the layout, supposedly to improve the efficiency with which product was received. Looks good to the boss, of course, since it shows you're always looking to improve the business (and have the execution skills to make it happen)... but if your change was really all that great, then why does another supervisor make another project out of redesigning the same area just four or five years later? Especially when there was no real system change to explain why a new layout would really be more efficient. If the first project had been done right, how could a new layout be more efficient? The same holds true almost everywhere, tbh, and I know some long time non-commissioned officers who internally roll their eyes as their leadership comes up with a 'new' plan that is pretty much exactly what they'd seen someone try five years prior.
If you're going to throw out the status quo, you should at least understand how that status quo came to be. It's sort of like a variation on Sun Tzu - "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
If you know the driving forces behind the status quo (as well as the other drivers of change) and know yourself, then you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself, but not the driving forces behind the status quo and other change drivers, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the driving forces behind the status quo, the other change drivers, nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
Eh, that makes it a bit too long to by pithy, but I hope you get the gist.
Anyways, the point is that people are sometimes so determined to make changes that they see any obstacle as a threat to be overcome... and in the process they may undo the hard work of prior generations. Like removing the checks and balances generations of people fought hard for, because they don't really understand why those checks and balances were created in the first place, and just see them as an obstacle in their way.
The pitfall here is this: there's a natural tendency to overcome obstacles by consolidating or amassing enough power to smash through them. Again, it can lead to unintended consequences, and some pretty bad ones at that. (I want to go into this more in another post, but this is probably enough for today. To remind myself of the thread I want to pick up - it'll touch on the endgame in chess.)
No comments:
Post a Comment