Comfort with chaos
On her blog earlier this week, Lindy Dreyer shares a piece of advice about control: "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
Meanwhile, Wes Trochlil makes a similar point about data collection. He says, "It's not reasonable or useful to try to collect all types of data from all of your members and customers."
And Peter Bregman at Harvard Business argues that the best way to create change is to focus on changing one thing, not an entire system. His advice: "...[T]ake the time up front to figure out the one and only thing that will have the highest impact and then focus 100% of [your] effort on that one thing."
I really liked these thoughts (you should go read all three posts), because they allude to something we often forget: Planet Earth is a chaotic place. It's made up of unpredictable environments filled with unpredictable humans who create unpredictable systems. Life is so much easier when you get comfortable with that chaos. Pick the sliver you can effectively influence, and then let the rest go.
And so I would suggest a slightly different but equally important way to phrase Lindy's advice above: "Don't get so caught up in trying to control everything that you miss your chance to control something."
| | Permalink |
Comments
I love your spin. It applies to so many areas of association management--especially component and volunteer relations. I also love the idea of "comfort with chaos." When I watch Mad Men I always think about how controlled and simple the world seemed. You could win over the world with a pithy phrase and a good ad campaign. Then go home for dinner and drinks with the neighbors. I don't see that world as idyllic, just different. For all the conflict, discomfort, loss of control, and general exasperation, chaos has its advantages.
Posted by: Lindy Dreyer | October 16, 2009 11:47 AM
I'm not sure focusing 100% of your efforts on 1 thing would be a good strategy in a chaotic world.
Posted by: Jeffrey Cufaude | October 17, 2009 5:49 PM
I think it's good advice to try to focus some efforts and regard success as=changing one thing at a time, but it's essential to keep an open portfolio of 'things that need changing.'
Some programs & circumstances that really need change may be the hardest to improve due to entrenched constituencies, staff attitudes, inadequate resources or an underappreciated need for change among leadership. I suspect this internal inertia is why associations sometimes lurch into huge/systemwide changes because the things that needed to be changed continued stacking up forever.
Ideally we'd tinker and tweak and test throughout the year, instead sometimes the fans suffer through the season until the coach is fired (and that's no guarantee that change=improvement!)
Posted by: Kevin Whorton | October 19, 2009 8:58 AM
Thanks for the comments, Lindy, Jeffrey, and Kevin.
I agree with Kevin that some balance is needed between focusing on one thing and keeping in mind others, but Jeffrey, I'd be curious to hear more about why you think a narrow focus is dangerous.
I think what we're getting at here is the point where control and focus butt heads. When an organization can't let go of control, it tries to do too much and finds itself spread too thin, rather than focused on doing one (or a few) things really well.
Someone has to set priorities and be willing to say "We will never win at X, so let's focus our efforts on Y."
Posted by: Joe Rominiecki | October 19, 2009 2:18 PM
Joe: Not opposed to the narrow focus, but going as narrow as just one thing, means you've have all your risk invested in a single option. Not sure that's the best strategy ever, but particularly in a chaotic environment where conditions change rapidly.
Posted by: Jeffrey Cufaude | October 21, 2009 7:28 PM