# Everything But By:: [[Ross Jackson]] 2025-01-06 When discussing organizational change, there is a frequent desire to keep everything the same but one aspect. There is nothing wrong with focusing on a particular element of change. The thing causing the most difficulty or underperforming the most likely needs to be the primary focus for improvement. The issue is that since organizations are, by definition, interconnected, changing one element will ripple through the organization in a multitude of ways. Some of these effects will be negligible. Some will be more consequential. Improving one department may spur competition among the departments, and the other departments will also improve to maintain their relative standing. This will “change” the dynamic among the departments. What was once a given, that the one department is the poor performing one, is now in question. To maintain the relative standing, a new level of competition could emerge where once there was none. If the departments “got along” when one department was performing poorly, the departments might not know, given that competition has emerged. The problem with everything but the model is that one cannot isolate variables in the real world. A change in one area potentially changes the entire thing. Executives sense this and, therefore, typically seek modest changes. This almost always entails a case where the marginal cost of change exceeds the marginal benefit. In other words, the effort wasn’t worth doing. As the saying goes, “Go big or go home.” If the organization isn’t performing well, blow it up and start anew. Be bold. Think big. Embark on something worth pursuing. The half-measure can’t be contained in the way one thinks and likely won’t generate the desired improvements. #### Related Items [[Organization]] [[Change]] [[Competition]] [[Collaboration]] [[Decision-making]] [[Strategy]]