Change? Not Unless Your Life Depends on It
Survival depends on adaptability, meaning your ability to adapt to changing conditions. It's true of companies, small businesses, people, even species. That makes it a powerful axiom, to be sure. Still, it's probably not news to you.
What will come as a surprise, however, is that the reverse is also true: people and organizations will only change when their survival is threatened. Without that, or at least a sense of crisis, people and organizations will resist change and thwart change initiatives.
The implications are far reaching. It means that, whenever you tell somebody or yourself that you're going to change, unless you've really "bottomed out" and truly feel like you have no choice, you won't change. And the same is true of organizations. Here are some examples:
IBM and Apple
IBM and Apple both went through successful transformational change, but only because both companies were on the verge of extinction. In a speech to Harvard Business School MBA students, former IBM CEO Lou Gerstner really hit the nail on the head when he said:
"Transformation of an enterprise begins with a sense of crisis or urgency. No institution will go through fundamental change unless it believes it is in deep trouble and needs to do something different to survive."
Indeed, Gerstner's turnaround of IBM amounted to nothing less than bringing a dinosaur back from the brink of extinction. And he accomplished that at a time when everyone else thought the only answer was to break the company into pieces and sell them off.
Likewise, Apple was nearly bankrupt when Steve Jobs rejoined the company and executed the most dramatic corporate turnaround in history. And while there were several facets to that transformational change, nobody would argue that the company's survival was at stake.
Toyota completely revamped its manufacturing and reliability processes as a result of last year's massive and unprecedented vehicle recall and accelerator pedal crisis, even though the company was later vindicated. Its very survival wasn't threatened, but there was definitely a major sense of crisis at the automaker.
As for BP and the oil industry in the wake of the gulf disaster, well, the jury's still out.
Unlike IBM, Apple, and Toyota, there are loads of notable examples of companies that needed to change, should have changed, but couldn't pull it off. The key reason appears to be that their survival wasn't threatened. Take Microsoft and Intel - the Wintel duopoly - for example.
The Wintel Duopoly
Both companies saw the writing on the wall at least a decade in advance of the current revolution in communications, smartphones, and now tablets that threaten their core business based on the personal computer platform.
And while both companies have mounted nothing short of monumental efforts to reposition themselves, both have met with resounding failure. Intel has invested billions in communications chips and technology but has little traction to show for it. Likewise, Microsoft has almost negligible market share in these new markets.
The underlying factor beneath their failure to change is that both companies are highly profitable and growing in their bread and butter markets. But Wall Street knows better. Both company's stocks have languished for more than a decade - despite record growth and profits - because they've failed to gain traction in new high-growth markets.
Personal Change
It's fascinating that, indeed, the same concept holds true for people.
It's well known that people with serious personal, behavioral, or addiction issues will rarely seek help or truly address the problem unless they've "bottomed out," meaning a sense of crisis or urgency or even that their very survival is at stake.
Looking back over my life, I can identify three or four times when I really needed to change my ways and actually pulled it off. In every case, I felt an overwhelming sense of urgency or crisis. Otherwise, nothing really changed.
Think your dysfunctional boss will ever change? Probably not.
Bottom Line: Who knows what the reason is. Perhaps humans just have an extraordinary way of persevering and maintaining the status quo until a significant threat is identified. We seem to impart that characteristic on the organizations we create, as well.
Whatever the reason, the next time you want to bring fundamental change to your company, organization, or even yourself, remember that, without that one key component, it's not likely to happen. Indeed, there are ways to artificially create that sense of crisis, but that's another topic for another post. Stay tuned.
Also check out:
- What Changed Steve Jobs and Bill Gates?
- Why Change Management Fails
- Don't Try to Change Things You Can't