The Rhythm of Change - Is Full Speed Ahead Always Right?

It seems that the prevailing business credo these days is “keep on changing”; if you don’t your competition will eat you alive. In the midst of all this frenetic activity, say Professors Quy Huy and Henry Mintzberg, perhaps management gurus have overlooked an important perspective: that stability and continuity actually form the basis of our experience and therefore provide a context for how we view change. In an article appearing in the <i>Sloan Management Review,</i> they assert that there may even be times when change should be resisted; for example, when an organization should simply continue pursuing a perfectly good strategy.

by Quy Huy, Henry Mintzberg

In this article appearing in the <i>Sloan Management Review </i> authors Quy Nguyen Huy, Associate Professor of Strategy and Management at INSEAD and Henry Mintzberg, the John Cleghorn Professor of Management Studies at McGill University in Montreal, start off with a little piece of advice for managers: turn off the hype and look out the window. The advice is crucial, they say, during these hyper-turbulent times, when managers take seriously the job of continually initiating and adjusting to change, and when the prevailing wisdom agrees that change, by definition, is good and resistance to change is bad.

The fact is many things have remained unchanged throughout our recent history; the engine of the automobile you drive (used in Ford’s Model T) and even the buttons on the shirt you wear (the same as used by your grandparents). This, indeed, is a good thing, say the authors, because prolonged and pervasive change means anarchy. While they are not advocating inertia, the authors offer a framework whereby one can develop pragmatic, coherent approaches to thinking about change.

They suggest that there are three types of change processes. Although a lot of attention is focused on the type of change that is imposed dramatically from the top, Huy and Mintzberg believe that this view should be tempered by the realization that effective organizational change often emerges inadvertently (organic change) or develops in a more orderly fashion (systematic change). Because dramatic change alone can be just drama, systematic change by itself can be deadening, and organic change without the other two can be chaotic, the authors argue that they must be combined or, more often, sequenced and paced over time. When functioning in a kind of dynamic symbiosis, dramatic change can instead provide impetus, systematic change can instill order, and organic change can generate enthusiasm.

Sign in to continue

Sign in

Trouble signing in?

Reset password: Click here


Call: 020 8267 8121



  • Up to 4 free articles a month
  • Free email bulletins

Register Now

Get 30 days free access

Sign up for a 30 day free trial and get:

  • Full access to
  • Exclusive event discounts
  • Management Today's print magazine

Join today