Sitting in the fire
I'm always intrigued that those people and organisations who say they want change But really mean that what they want is for others to change.
Their own "elasticity" regarding change is often limited, for understandable reasons. They have a lot invested in the way things are - infrastructure, reputation, credit ratings; the list goes on. Incremental change is acceptable, but rarely enough. The end result is that product and organisational life cycles are reducing.
Change doesn't much care about their sensitivities, and is moving faster, and more unpredictably than they are.
For a number of reasons, the word 'dyad" has been cropping up for me a lot recently. A dyad is simply a pair, but the relationship between the pair is where it gets interesting. Harmonious dyads often seem not to cope with change very well. Vested interests. Old boy networks. They have similar world views, don't conflict, and are invested in the same things. Sparks rarely fly, and on the occasions they do are quickly …
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Outside the Walls to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.