Kim,
Welcome to the list! Yes, your question is broad but I believe there are
some answers available.
First, I point you toward the introduction of the Macintosh computer.
Steve Jobs knew that, in order to produce the revolutionary design of the
Macintosh, he would have to violate many of the fundamental principles
underlying the "value system" he had helped create in Apple. The zealots
who made the AppleII, and were still responsible for maintaining its
success in the marketplace (thus providing funding necessary for producing
the Macintosh), believed in what they were doing. It would have been
fatal to the ongoing success (and sales) of the AppleII to "infect" those
zealots with Macintosh fever -- calling into question their basic beliefs
about what they were doing while at the same time requiring them to
continue doing it!
So what did Jobs do? He took his Macintosh team away -- into a separate
building -- and prohibited contact between the two groups. They didn't
even share their telephone system, as I understand it.
Second, I point you toward a theme in the management literature that plots
the progress of successful organizations as a series of phases. One
seminal article, by Larry Greiner (in Harvard Business Review, July-August
1972 entitled "Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow), divides
organizational change into five phases. Others see three (George
Ainsworth-Land, "Grow or Die.") The point is that change occurs during an
organization's life for different reasons and in different ways depending
upon where in the life cycle the change occurs. Change for mature
businesses is quite different than for growing, or start-up, companies.
If your organization truly is mature, with little growth potential in your
traditional lines of business, what is required is a complete rethinking
of the corporation vision and mission. The limits to growth of a mature
business lie not in lack of creativity, nor in lack of effort, nor in lack
of resources -- they lie in the nature of the business itself ... that is,
the limits to growth lie in the way people in the company view the nature
of the business itself.
To quote an example: Before the breakup of AT&T, that great company had
generated one of the world's most amazing cases of business success. They
had set out to provide "universal telephone service" (everyone connected
to the phone system), and had (nearly) accomplished it! Think about it --
knocking on Alexander Graham Bell's door one night with the harebrained
scheme to tie every location in the United States together with copper
wire! Who would have thought it possible. Yet that's exactly what AT&T
did, and more. They had an "embedded investment" in copper wire, and in
their view of the nature of their business.
So long as they thought of themselves as being in the universal telephone
service business, their growth was nearly ended. You can't go higher than
100% connected -- not by more effort, more resources, more anything. It's
a limit placed by "nature" on the very concept.
So what could AT&T do? They could reconceptualize their business. And
they did. They realized that they were in the "telecommunications"
business -- not just connecting people and organizations by telephone, but
transmitting data, images, whatever, in a variety of ways (not just over
copper wire.) Who can see the limits to this enterprise? Not I, not now.
(But, eventually, there will be a limit even to this business concept.)
More germane to your question, note that AT&T, in order to pursue this new
business conceptualization, not only had to create a separate group to do
so -- they had to divest themselves of their embedded investment in the
old concept. They had to sever their relationship with the old Bell
operating companies, the keepers of universal telephone service. This was
a drastic response, required primarily because of the federal regulatory
environment. Most companies can act more like Apple, separating the two
groups.
Kim, I hope this gives you a start on your thinking.
--"John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>