Home Who We work with how we work Services workshops blog Resources About us Contact

“Working with Eric was a pleasure. We developed a good rapport and established a level of honesty and trust. I valued his counsel and recommendations. I find Eric to be very competent in a variety of disciplines. He is able to correctly diagnose organizational problems and suggest solutions that are on point. I found Eric to be a professional with the highest levels of honesty, integrity, and ethical behavior. I would not hesitate to engage his services again in the future.”

Kathy Lueckert,
former Corporate Services Director,
Department of Planning and Development,
City of Seattle
(Kathy is now Director of Planning and Finance for Advocacy and Communications at World Vision.)

“I've worked closely with Eric on developing and presenting the Leadership Eastside community leadership program. He has that rare blend of extensive real-world experience along with a very strong background in theory and research. He moves easily between big picture strategy and the tactical details. Eric brings a superb ability to plan, execute and follow-through, both as a behind-the-scenes planner and as an upfront instructor and facilitator.”

Annalee Luhman,
founding board member,
Leadership Eastside

 

Conflict and change: The blog

 Subscribe in a reader

 

6 February 2009

The quandary of revolutionary change

Is it better to go after massive, revolutionary change, or to work to modify what you have now and try to move it in the direction you hope for?

 

This is the question surgeon and writer Atul Gawande took up in a recent New Yorker essay on health care reform. It’s a fine piece, and one I heartily recommend.

 

His argument is that massive, revolutionary change may seem attractive, but it rarely works. Why? We tend to downplay the power of current systems and other external constraints to thwart massive change. Furthermore, we rarely get “revolutionary change” right the first time out.

 

Instead, it’s better to work on modifying—even dramatically if necessary—the current system from where it is. Don’t throw it out and plan to start over from scratch.

 

Influence leaders are more effective trying to make “modifications” than trying to bring about massive, revolutionary change.

 

In making modifications, influence leaders provide themselves with multiple opportunities to get it right. They provide for their own learning curve—they get time to think about what they are seeing and how to change their approach.

 

They are not betting the farm on a single, brilliant idea working. Instead, they are planning to be in for the long haul.

 

Of course, there are occasions for revolutionary change. I’m not saying that we never seek big change.

 

What I am saying is that it is probably a mistake for influence leaders to believe they have the one answer and to drive for revolutionary change most of the time. They are much more likely to achieve the same results by focusing on modifying, not destroying, the very system they are working within.