The title of this piece may befuddle some people, but notice how change often comes about within organizations. The realization that all is not well in the business is evident at all levels, but there is no real driver to push the necessary change. We've all heard the term “change agent”. That is usually a person who has ideas about what should change and suggests the means for the change. That change agent is often referred to as the “hatchet man”. That name is held in low esteem because the aftermath of actions taken by the change agent resembles scorched earth. People are displaced and the organizational design is turned on its preverbal head. Afterwards is a period of healing and acceptance. Those original people who cannot get beyond the trauma of the change, find ways to move along to the next thing or organization. The people who remain are more likely to embrace the change and begin to thrive in the new environment. This entire methodology seems extremely harsh and unforgiving. Now that you are thinking about the common ways of change implementation, let's fast forward to a different way to accomplish change in an organization. What if change can happen within an organization without an external catalyst like the change agent? What if the people in the organization had the power to upset the balance of the organization and can advance the business without the scorched earth aftermath? There may be a way to accomplish this change in an interesting way. Change happens because of drivers of many sorts. Sometimes, organizations get complacent and the competition rockets past them. To keep up, the organizations must figure out new ways to compete. Does it require extracting more efficiency from internal business processes? Does it require re-tooling? Are new skills needed in the workforce? Are new suppliers with better and less expensive raw materials needed. These questions point to drivers that create the need for change. Now, a means of change must be identified to address the challenges. How about a little friction? Friction, in the current context, may be defined as philosophical differences between approaches to solving challenges. We see this all the time with scenarios requiring Analysis of Alternatives (AoA). Ideas are presented by several people in the organization and those ideas are judged by internal peers to find the best means of addressing the challenges. Did you catch what just happened? The organization solved its own challenges using people who are immersed in the business. No need for an external change agent who does not understand your business or the environment in which you operate to institute change. That is a powerful concept. Even though friction sounds like a horrible term, a healthy competition of ideas within the organization ensures that new ideas are always being generated to keep the organization viable. The ideas live or die based on their relevance and viability within that business domain. This eliminates, to some degree, the rise of personal animosity amongst people within the company. If a person wants his or her idea to drive the next big focus for the company, they are forced to study new avenues and anticipate and counter alternatives. In short, everyone becomes a creative force to drive up the value delivered by the company. The more change that happens using internal friction, the healthier the organization can become and the more formidable the organization becomes to its competitors.
