LoveIsTheAnswer
04-27-2008, 05:11 AM
ACCOMPLISHING CHANGE
"Embrace change – sometimes in the winds of change we find our true direction"
When faced with serious problems people usually imagine that the only solution is a drastic change.
Logic would dictate that a big problem means there is a big gap between the current situation and the desired state.
This implies that a “big step” must be undertaken.
But however logical that sounds, there are some objections against the big steps approach.
Firstly, the approach requires much insight and knowledge about the effectiveness of the step.
A big step requires a lot of energy and often a lot of money.
When it fails there may be considerable material and immaterial harm and a great loss of time
Therefore a lot depends on whether it is the right big step and whether it is executed well.
By the use of lateral thinking, we can see that the point here is to "recognize dominant ideas that polarize perception of a problem".
The perception in this case that needs to be recognized is that there is no actual requirement for the problem to be solved in ‘one fell swoop’.
When a problem or task seems daunting or too large to tackle in one go, it is better to break it down into smaller parts.
Consultants using the principles of solution-focused change routinely use the small steps approach.
The more literally this is taken the better.
The central idea governing the choice of these steps is to only change what is strictly necessary.
This action has multiple benefits;
* The act of breaking down the problem is already the first step towards achieving the goal.
* When the threshold of change is made sufficiently low, both the willingness to take the step and the probability of change are maximized.
* Each step is more easily carried out
* Since each step is smaller, there is less risk of possible loss associated with it.
* Since focus is shifted to smaller “sub-tasks”, each may be carried out more thoroughly
* One gains a certain “inertia” after having successfully carried out the first few steps
The small steps approach can also have a surprising side effect; it may lead to a snowball effect.
Edwin Olson and Glenda Eoyang, authors of ‘Facilitating Organizational Change: Lessons from Complexity Science’ (2001) describe such a process as follows:
“A small change in one part ripples through the organization and can have tremendous unintended consequences far from the site of the intervention”.
Why is that so? The reason is that in any system or organisation, everything depends on everything else.
A positive change made anywhere can create positive changes elsewhere in the system.
This is called the “Ripple Effect” or “Butterfly Effect”.
Scientist Edward Lorenz reasoned that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil might cause a tornado in Texas.
Likewise, taking one step forward as an individual can eventually lead to system wide progress.
The behaviour of one person will affect the behaviour of another person, which will affect yet another person, and so on.
In this way, small-scale actions may lead to large-scale change.
After the step forward is taken, attention is paid to how the step has helped. Next, a following small step is taken.
The smaller the steps are, the better - you will find that the more you document the actual detail of the task, the easier the entire job becomes.
This method applies as much to making up a three-course meal or re-organizing a workshop as it does to reconditioning an antique car or setting up a business.
[…..or even writing a book]
"Embrace change – sometimes in the winds of change we find our true direction"
When faced with serious problems people usually imagine that the only solution is a drastic change.
Logic would dictate that a big problem means there is a big gap between the current situation and the desired state.
This implies that a “big step” must be undertaken.
But however logical that sounds, there are some objections against the big steps approach.
Firstly, the approach requires much insight and knowledge about the effectiveness of the step.
A big step requires a lot of energy and often a lot of money.
When it fails there may be considerable material and immaterial harm and a great loss of time
Therefore a lot depends on whether it is the right big step and whether it is executed well.
By the use of lateral thinking, we can see that the point here is to "recognize dominant ideas that polarize perception of a problem".
The perception in this case that needs to be recognized is that there is no actual requirement for the problem to be solved in ‘one fell swoop’.
When a problem or task seems daunting or too large to tackle in one go, it is better to break it down into smaller parts.
Consultants using the principles of solution-focused change routinely use the small steps approach.
The more literally this is taken the better.
The central idea governing the choice of these steps is to only change what is strictly necessary.
This action has multiple benefits;
* The act of breaking down the problem is already the first step towards achieving the goal.
* When the threshold of change is made sufficiently low, both the willingness to take the step and the probability of change are maximized.
* Each step is more easily carried out
* Since each step is smaller, there is less risk of possible loss associated with it.
* Since focus is shifted to smaller “sub-tasks”, each may be carried out more thoroughly
* One gains a certain “inertia” after having successfully carried out the first few steps
The small steps approach can also have a surprising side effect; it may lead to a snowball effect.
Edwin Olson and Glenda Eoyang, authors of ‘Facilitating Organizational Change: Lessons from Complexity Science’ (2001) describe such a process as follows:
“A small change in one part ripples through the organization and can have tremendous unintended consequences far from the site of the intervention”.
Why is that so? The reason is that in any system or organisation, everything depends on everything else.
A positive change made anywhere can create positive changes elsewhere in the system.
This is called the “Ripple Effect” or “Butterfly Effect”.
Scientist Edward Lorenz reasoned that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil might cause a tornado in Texas.
Likewise, taking one step forward as an individual can eventually lead to system wide progress.
The behaviour of one person will affect the behaviour of another person, which will affect yet another person, and so on.
In this way, small-scale actions may lead to large-scale change.
After the step forward is taken, attention is paid to how the step has helped. Next, a following small step is taken.
The smaller the steps are, the better - you will find that the more you document the actual detail of the task, the easier the entire job becomes.
This method applies as much to making up a three-course meal or re-organizing a workshop as it does to reconditioning an antique car or setting up a business.
[…..or even writing a book]