Why is incremental change better than big change?

​Colleagues,
 
Big change is awesome when it works. The problem is that it rarely does. Why? Big change:

• Is slow to develop, making it difficult to address issues early (0>1).
• Increases load by going from A-M or A-Z (A-B).
• Requires more resources and complexity (MVP)
• Requires greater effort for a delayed value (M=V/E)

 
Big change also monopolizes organizational focus and resources. Significant implementation timelines make big change initiatives vulnerable to internal and external environmental factors like personnel changes and shifting priorities.
 
However, adopting an incremental approach doesn’t mean you never get to the outcomes promised by big change. Strategic Action Cycles take the principles of leverage and apply them to a specific problem. Each cycle improves the situation a bit more and moves the organization closer to the goal of the big change. You already know why this works. Incremental change:

• Decreases effort
• Increases value
• Provides immediate results
• Provides immediate feedback

 
Leverage is a set of principles which we can apply through Strategic Action Cycles. We won’t be looking at SACs for a while, but I do provide a two-day training on them. If you’d like to know more just email me by clicking here.
 
Friday reflection questions:

• What big change efforts are you involved with?
• Can you refocus those efforts on a more incremental approach?
• If your big change effort is stalled, what is one small thing you could do immediately to improve the situation?

 
Bonus question: If you have someone that is not motivated, is the problem that they don’t see the value in what you want them to do or that it doesn’t actually have value for them?
 
Final reminder: Be intentional about your actions and consult with the relevant stakeholders!
 
Do good and be well,
 
Frederick