Rhythm of Change
The article The Rhythm of Change mentions that "change has to be managed with a profound appreciation of stability." Is this statement contradictory? My first thought was if something changes it is not stable. But even though this might be true, the rhythm of change is stable.
The article states that there are three categories of change that make up "The Change Triangle", dramatic, systematic, and organic change. Dramatic change is something that happens in emergency situations or in a crisis and is usually led with formal leadership. Systematic change is often developed by planning committees; it is a more organized process than that of dramatic change. Organic change is considered very "messy" and not very organized. Organic change arises throughout the organization without formal leadership.
The authors believed that in order for change to be effective all categories must be combined, organized, and properly planned creating a rhythm of change. They felt that if this happened "…dramatic change can instead provide impetus, systematic change can instill order, and organic change can generate enthusiasm." The combination or the rhythm of change is proven by three main modes; revolution, reform, and rejuvenation.
Revolution is organic change that turns into dramatic change that requires systematic change. Reform must stimulate organic change and be driven by dramatic change but is mainly systematic change. Rejuvenation is mainly organic change, but must provide some systematic change and most likely will result in dramatic change.
As stated in the article "…effective change arises from the natural, rhythmic combination of organic and systematic change with the well placed syncopation of dramatic transformation." The definition of change is to make different. The definition of stable is not changing, but it also means steady in purpose and strong in resolution. As long as the change in an organization is managed and the purpose of the
The article states that there are three categories of change that make up "The Change Triangle", dramatic, systematic, and organic change. Dramatic change is something that happens in emergency situations or in a crisis and is usually led with formal leadership. Systematic change is often developed by planning committees; it is a more organized process than that of dramatic change. Organic change is considered very "messy" and not very organized. Organic change arises throughout the organization without formal leadership.
The authors believed that in order for change to be effective all categories must be combined, organized, and properly planned creating a rhythm of change. They felt that if this happened "…dramatic change can instead provide impetus, systematic change can instill order, and organic change can generate enthusiasm." The combination or the rhythm of change is proven by three main modes; revolution, reform, and rejuvenation.
Revolution is organic change that turns into dramatic change that requires systematic change. Reform must stimulate organic change and be driven by dramatic change but is mainly systematic change. Rejuvenation is mainly organic change, but must provide some systematic change and most likely will result in dramatic change.
As stated in the article "…effective change arises from the natural, rhythmic combination of organic and systematic change with the well placed syncopation of dramatic transformation." The definition of change is to make different. The definition of stable is not changing, but it also means steady in purpose and strong in resolution. As long as the change in an organization is managed and the purpose of the