Massive Change
When more than a little change is necessary
Visiting Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s home in Hyde Park, New York over the weekend reminded me of the massive changes in our society that FDR introduced over his four terms as president. The Emergency Banking Act, FDIC, Civilian Conservation Corps, Federal Emergency Relief Act, National Industrial Recovery Act, Public Works Administration, Agriculture Adjustment Administration, Tennessee Valley Authority, Securities and Exchange Commission, Social Security, National Labor Relations Act, Rural Electrification Administration, and actions to strengthen federal authority were among them.
FDR would never have succeeded in leading such massive change had there not been a national emergency, as reflected in the titles of several of his major pieces of legislation. The times called for something extraordinary, although many of the agencies he created remain a part of our lives today. In calmer times, many of these acts would have been subject to endless public and political debate, eventually losing steam and being left in the dust of history. Only by virtue of necessity did we learn how truly valuable some of these measures proved to be, which reminded me of why transformational change efforts rarely succeed.
When startups fail, it’s back to the drawing board. Bankruptcies call for oversight and reorganization. Lost wars or political campaigns result in regime changes. Outside of these extreme cases, massive change is rare.
Massive change is unlike incremental change in that it’s like starting over; enough about the system changes that it is unlike what it was before. What’s more, in massive change, there’s no turning back, as depicted in the figure above. Incremental change rocks the bowl but the ball stays inside; in massive change, when the bowl is shaken sufficiently, the ball leaves the bowl and doesn’t roll back to where it was. A new way forward must be found.
Massive changes are usually triggered by external circumstances that make actions previously thought to be unimaginable seem logical and necessary. Exiting a core business that was under extreme pressure and betting on a new technology instead would be an example. The timing of the response to an external threat is crucial; move too early and there won’t be acceptance but move too late and well – it’s too late. It’s too early at the moment for firms to abandon current products and strategies in order to go all in on artificial intelligence, for example, but the time may come soon.
Of perhaps greater interest than externally induced massive change are those transformations driven primarily by leaders with a different idea of how things could be. There have always been visionaries among us, but they face a challenging array of resisting forces as they attempt to bring about massive change. Investors are risk averse, employees organize against actions being taken that could affect their job security, and customers remain loyal to existing products. Even executives on the visionary’s team are worried about the proposed changes and may fracture in their support of the plan. Overcoming such resistance is the stuff of legends, especially if the vision proves prescient in the end.
More than a few would-be CEOs imagine that once in the role, they will lead massive change in their organizations. Observing the dysfunctional politics, the lack of employee engagement, the wasted time in endless meetings, the flat sales, the restrictions on innovation and other maladies common to large, bureaucratic organizations, they imagine charging in on a white stallion to lead an upheaval in the way things are done. Then, most are rudely awakened. Even the simplest of changes turns out to be incredibly difficult to make.
In studying successful leaders of massive change not prompted by an emergency, like JFK, Steve Jobs, Satya Nadella, Howard Schultz, and Richard Branson, there are several things that stand out.
Vision. We all know how important having a vision is to leading people through change. People need a sense of why change is important and where it is taking them. The vision has to clearly specify what will be better about the future, or “What’s in it for me” (WFIM), from the viewpoint of each stakeholder group. For massive change, everything about the vision as stated here is still true but in addition, the power of the vision has to be sufficient to overcome any doubt and align even those at the extreme with the direction being proposed. To go against the position espoused would make one appear to be disloyal or worse, forcing people to either get on board or seek a future elsewhere.
A clear plan. Vague notions are not enough to provoke a shift in favor of massive change. There need to be clear and achievable steps that will be taken to accomplish the transformation. Even though the steps may be difficult, if they are perceived as impossible, the change will never get started. Setting out on the Oregon Trail would have been intimidating to many who made the trip had they not known that others had succeeded. Those who went first would have stayed home had it not been for Lewis and Clark.
Support. Leaders of massive change get support from different sources. If it’s their own fortune at risk, it’s relatively easy. If it’s convincing others, they must build trust or inspire the willingness of others to follow. The latter is when the magic of personality intersects with the occasion to do something that is the person’s life calling and circumstances create a rare window of opportunity.
Persistence. Leaders of massive change appear stubborn to the point of foolishness to many who would have given up the quest long before they had a chance to succeed. Betting the last penny, leaving a position of considerable power and promise to pursue a dream, and subjecting oneself to repeated failure are behaviors that typify this trait.
Massive change is not always called for but it is an ever-present possibility. The decision to take it up shouldn’t be made half-heartedly if one wishes to succeed.