Corporate Change LO8867

Koftan, Ryan J. (ryan.koftan@anheuser-busch.com)
Sun, 4 Aug 1996 22:18:28 -0500

Replying to LO8813 --

It is interesting that everyone talks about change in the most certain of
tones and topics and the 'manageability' of something that is by it's very
nature chaotic and unmanageable. It is the inherent adapatability of man
that has led to our unquestioned success and dominance over the lower life
forms. It only seems when the 'like-minded' ( and I use the term loosely)
individuals group to form a structure (such as a corporation, government
or religion) and hierarchy that itself becomes an entity. The instinctive
adaptability of it's members lessens to such an extent that it can
threaten the existence of the very organization it is striving to sustain.

Change is inevitable and only those who accept the radical ideas, who
continue to encourage the 'thinking out of the box' and who challenge and
nuture the creative individuals, are those organizations that will be able
to prosper and whether the storms of change without the persecution of
conformity thrust upon itself and it's members.

It is a continuing source of interest to me to examine the 'phases' of our
lives and the growths and challenges that lead us to be the person we will
become before we leave this world. With the ever expanding life span of
humans, it is inevitable that the
information/technological/industrial/political (pick whichever one you
want) revolutions will have made several turnovers in a single lifetime.
We can only hope to trust our instincts and follow the thread.

We are in constant danger of ruining the present by tangential pursuits.
But without these pursuits, the present is static and without interest to
our very nature. Only in this stasis do we truly forefeit our lives to the
mediocrity and dull our minds and hearts to the joys of living.

>From: mxjeli@mail.wm.edu[SMTP:mxjeli@mail.wm.edu]
>
> Keith's comment about HP as a long distance runner caught my
>attention: Keith suggested that HP had reinvented itself a couple of
>times
>without fanfare: yes, indeed. I had the priviledge of interviewing
>David
>Packard some years back, and his successor sometime after he'd come on
>board: such a transition is a major event in a corporation's life, when
>the baton is passed to "the next generation." HP weathered the change
>very
>gracefully, and made some significant changes in structure and approach
>at
>the time. In subsequent years, further transitions have likewise been
>successfully navigated, as nearly as I can tell with elegant attention
>to
>the original spirit - not the virtual words - of the founders. In my
>book
>INNOVATION MARATHON, that sort of reinterpretation is depicted as the
>only
>way a new generation can possibly retain its soul, and travel on:
>fundamentalism - seeking to recreate the literal word of the founders -
>is
>a fatally flawed approach, for times do change. The only way to keep
>the
>faith, is to make it really yours by reinterpreting what it must mean
>in
>spirit, in the context of contemporary times.
>
>Sam

-- 

"Koftan, Ryan J." <ryan.koftan@anheuser-busch.com>

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>