"But we've never done it that way." Or variations on the theme: "It's worked ok for ___ (insert number of years); why change it now?" I am trying to imagine how the scions of industry would have reacted to these kinds of questions.
- Lee Iacocca, credited with engineering Ford's Mustang and (more infamously) the Pinto, was released from his position and snapped up by Chrysler. He turned that company around, through introducing new models, assuring federal loan guarantees to help through a 1979 fiscal crisis, and so much more. He definitely changed the way things had been done.
- Steve Jobs, founder of Apple and the leader in the personal computer revolution. Sacked by the company in 1985, he soon acquired Pixar, which had spun off from Lucasfilms. The rest is history; he returned to Apple in 1998 and led the development of iMac, iTunes, iPod, iPhone, and iPad, and on the services side, the company's Apple Retail Stores, iTunes Store and the App Store. There may be no corporate turnaround as dramatic as that engineered by Jobs, who definitely thought "out of the box."
- In the political spectrum, one recalls Presidents who were great thinkers: Thomas Jefferson must head the list. Abraham Lincoln, trying to preserve the stability of our nation, instead was forced to lead us through a ferocious civil war. Others who ably served in times of trial must include Woodrow Wilson and, of course, FDR. In the latter's case, the New Deal policies enacted were actually variations on tropes put in place by Republicans (the great mayors of Detroit come to mind) several decades before. If only we still enjoyed leaders who managed to put partisan rhetoric aside and worked for the good of all.
Michael Reardon writes how this thinking effects the non-profit sector. Kathleen Fitzpatrick comments on its affect on the Scholarly Journal.
There are, of course, many others who chose to buck prevailing trends in their businesses, political arenas, or even the arts and cultural sectors. Whenever there is a major change in the leadership of a cultural organization, the result is either amazingly positive (the LA Philharmonic) or potentially disastrous (the impending strike/lockout at the MET--eight days and counting).
This even occurs on a much smaller level. I cannot count the number of times I've heard, "We never did it that way before," from my earliest years of teaching to the present. Of course, one often learns the hard way, and I've taught myself to take my time, analyze the situation/organization and then propose what I see as incremental steps toward leading an organization/ensemble towed its greater mission. Sounds easy....if only....
One of my current ensembles was faced with a crisis of monumental proportions in the Winter of 2008. We suddenly found ourselves without a rehearsal space, necessary equipment, and a music library. A rejuvenated Board of Directors worked hard to rectify all of those problems in a very short time. But, since that time, the organization has been coasting and it's time to pick things up a notch and, in particular, expand our outreach. I think they're ready.
Two other ensembles have similar problems in terms of rehearsal and performance venues, both of which are woefully inadequate and, in many ways, detrimental to fine music making. One has been slowly improving (often in baby steps, but still moving forward). The other wants very strongly to be better than it is. It's a matter of substantive change for one and a change of mindset for another. What will it take? I'm not sure, but again, changes in leadership can lead organizations out of the doldrums or simply an organizational rut. Like businesses, cultural entities must always be moving in a positive direction. We need to constantly improve music making and marketing of that product. There's really no time for resting on laurels, real or imagined.
So, when I hear those seven little words, I'm tempted to respond in ways that I probably shouldn't. Fortunately, I've basically learned from the errors of my youth and have tried to surround myself with like thinkers. There are more than one might imagine.
I completely agree that progress requires change. My grandfather was a fairly successful local business leader that coined the phrase that there is nothing so perfect that it cannot be improved. Although there are certain works of art that are darn close to disproving that theory, that is another topic, and the theory generally holds true.
ReplyDeleteIf you will allow me to make a slight countermelody to your post….. I think there is a time and place for tradition…. and it is good to understand what is behind people’s reactions to change. I think the phrase “because we’ve always done it that way” is really a way to say “I’ve never had to defend this practice and I’m not sure how to so I’ll just say we do this”. There are some traditions that are dumb and serve no purpose. Some traditions exist to create order, organization, and stability. People like to know what to expect. There is enough chaos and unpredictability in the world that people need something to keep the world stable under their feet. This is why you don’t necessarily have to have OCD to appreciate having some structure to our habits and in things around us. Tradition provides that stability and predictability for many people. To change these is to destabilize their world some, which some people react to better than others.
I think some of the fear of change also comes from seeing situations where change has not worked so well. I’m sure when Mr. Gelb came in charge of the Met, and he started spending like a drunken PDQ Bach, he believed spending more in this place or that would create a better product and the fans would be streaming through the door and gladly pay for these changes plus some and everything would be great. It hasn’t worked out that way of course. Change there has brought crisis. While some progressive ideas have created progress, others have created a great deal of regression. Change takes faith and courage, and there is a potential for failure.
I believe making changes takes not only courage, but communication. I think sometimes you have to make the earth move under people’s feet some. If it is done with some understanding and communication of the what, how, and why, people are more receptive to it. Not everyone, but most people will. As with so many things, it is all in the approach. It is a little like setting up a cue. It is communication about what is about to happen so everyone is ready and boom, it happens, together and it is a wonderful thing (hopefully). If one is going to get people to think outside of the box, you may have to break the box some. If people know that it is to make a better box and how it is going to make a better box, then there will be at least some better understanding of why the earth just moved.