“Attention Legacy Companies! While you continuously fight to get buy-in for change your new competitor bought in for continuous improvement and bets on your complacency.”
What do you mean you can’t get buy-in. Why are management teams so focused on the pacification of Buy-in Management? Too many organizations are losing the battle of their relevancy because they insist on focusing on Change Management over Relevancy Management. And yes I believe there is a difference.
It seems that the arguments for moving in a different direction always relate to Buy-in for so many legacy organizations. In the world of business today the winners will be those who can move fast, those whose teams understand it’s not about change, it’s about constant relevancy. Think about Amazon, a company that started out selling books online; they are now a 150 Billion Dollar organization selling everything under the sun including the clouds, with a market cap which eclipses each of the top ten retailers north of 100 billion making their owner, Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world. If Amazon”s leadership constantly worried about “Change Management” does anyone believe they would be building their second Headquarters, a headquarters where the chosen city benefits from a 5 Billion Dollar Boom?
While the brick and mortar retail industry wasted time getting buy-in and refused to change. Amazon continued in its relentless ability to modify constantly. Jeff Bezos bets on and takes advantage of the time his competitors waste fighting against or for change. While Amazon’s competitors are contemplating the reasons for the change, Bezo’s Amazon team is modifying to the new relevancy, this then forces his competitors to change, and for many, it becomes too late.
“Those who deliver the Future to the Present, are always delivering relevance, those who don’t temporarily deliver their past relevance.”
Teams today must be held accountable for relevancy making. The word Change and the word Relevancy are not relatives. Change is the process or result of becoming different. Relevancy is Something relevant to a task if it increases the likelihood of accomplishing a goal. Relevancy is a constant process; change is a forced process caused by not staying relevant.
The goal of all businesses is to provide the means to a buyers desired outcome or goal. In my view, the desired outcomes and the means to their achievement constantly evolve, so the relevancy of both the outcome and the means to their achievements must stay relevant for sustainability. When organizations tasks themselves with what many call Change Management, they find themselves running around trying to get buy-in. This constant battle for buy-in from team members becomes a bartering system of demands and bribes between management and their teams in the hope things move forward; they hope things change. When you are forced to change the pain it causes becomes distracting. The cost of forced change is the fine you pay for not modifying along the way.
Innovative organizations understand that needing to change is the essence of a failed attempt at constantly staying relevant. Innovative organizations understand their corporate culture is about providing exceptional experiences to their customers. Today's innovative companies don’t chase Buy-in, and they don’t have to waste time with change management tactics. They instead have a process which ensures their constant relevance. Staying Relevant is in the first sentence of their job descriptions.
Today’s customer has more access to define not only new outcomes but also the means to their achievement. A company with a constant focus on relevance will modify keeping pace with the evolution of their product or its services. It’s this constant modification which defines their management. The outcome of Constant Relevancy is dependent on the leaders and the teams they lead understanding the power and importance of the word “Currently.”
“In business, of the doors which open to yesterday, today or tomorrow only the door to tomorrow is locked, and relevancy is its key.”
R. J. Stasieczko
Comments (1)