by Ron Siddell
Busy!
People at work have never been as busy as they are now. They�re fighting to
keep their heads above water, trying to preserve systems and processes in
place, and just survive. At the same time, they�re being asked to innovate,
that is to change the way they manage and to make changes in the way their
organizations conduct business. This for many presents a dichotomy.
Perhaps one concern we all could
be aware of, and something which could be minimized, is friction between
those who are primarily concerned with current business demands or survival today, and those who are putting a
lot of effort into innovating the way they do business for survival tomorrow.
In somewhat simplistic terms, there are two paradigms, or patterns, that
could co-exist peacefully and, in fact, are complementary, within an
organization at any time along its evolutionary path. Both are essential to
long-term success. One could be called preservation, the other innovation.
Of these two patterns, people
generally fall into the one in which they perform best and in which they feel
most comfortable. Sometimes the circumstances they are dealing with make the
choice for them. There are some individuals who are successful in operating
within both paradigms at once. Throughout the course of a career, a person
could switch from one to the other.
Although,
and ideally, the paradigms can exist in a mutually beneficial relationship,
there will be periods when one, by necessity, will predominate. When a
company is operating in a state of steady or rapidly accelerating demand for
its current products or services, business sense tells us that we need to
focus energy on preservation.
This is
not to say that preservation is merely ensuring status quo of the processes
and systems, which generate our products and services. Any process or system
once in place begins to deteriorate without continuous and incremental
improvement.� On the other hand, when
a significant �paradigm shift� in a company�s approach to doing business is
deemed necessary, deep and sometimes rapid innovation, or change, and
managing it will demand a lion�s share of attention.
�����
However,
even in the best of times when both paradigms can peacefully and beneficially
co-exist, innovation will be uncomfortable for �preservators.� For some it
will pose a threat. This is not unusual or wrong. In fact, it is normal and expected.
Because innovators, by definition, lead change, they will often come into
conflict with those people who believe their mission is to ensure that
company operations continue, especially during a period of significant
stress. Innovators need to recognize that preservation is necessary and
accept the responsibility for minimizing or eliminating conflict as it
pertains to their efforts to effect change.
What can
innovators do to maintain effective working relationships with
preservators�especially those they report to�and what can they do to help
ensure successful implementation of change?
They can
begin by respecting the preservation paradigm and the people in it.
Innovators can keep open lines of communication with preservators, letting
them know what they are doing and why, especially when the innovator is
subordinate. Regular reports on successes, set- backs and other change
activities can go a long way in keeping the boss� support, even if the
preservator doesn�t have time for outright involvement. As C.S. Lewis
expressed it: A glimpse is not a vision. But to a person on a mountain road
by night, a glimpse of the next three feet of road may matter more than a
vision of the horizon.
Preservators
have a responsibility as well, that being to recognize that long-term success
is every bit as important as immediate survival. They need to understand that
change will occur, whether we like it or not, and it is best to influence
change and benefit from it rather than to suffer it.�
I hope people can learn to value
both the preservation and innovation roles and learn to move easily and
comfortably from one to the other. Preservation can equate to improvement and
ensuring that the processes and systems in place meet or exceed what is
required and are continuously and incrementally improved. Innovation can
equate to change resulting in major breakthroughs which, when implemented,
will then be candidates for preservation and improvement.
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������