Page 141 - The Resilient Organization

128 Part Three: Step 2. Building Resilience into the Organization

of past truths (Argyris & Schon, 1978). Rationalizing issues away, mistak-
ing luck for smarts in explanations of success, and having difficulty admit-
ting that current strategies may be decaying were some of the perceived
impediments related to dominant mental models.
The visit that over 4,000 people made to the Resilience Deficiency Ward
(or Resilience Hospital) was instrumental in a realization that successful
companies eventually (or abruptly) fail too. The discussion that followed
regarding the “resilience deficiency symptoms” that their own company
may be exhibiting allowed further reflection along these lines: “The other
retailers, now in the Resilience Hospital, also had smart people like us
working there. But they did not do enough. . . . They allowed themselves to
be complacent. . . . They did not see the signs for change.” Thus, as a result
of the exhibit visit and follow-up discussions, there was among the partici-
pants an emergent recognition of the temporariness or fragility of success.
The playfulness of the experience allowed a discussion that might not
otherwise have been possible.

Routine Behaviors

Overconfidence in business as usual is one of the adaptive barriers that is
constantly rehearsed within the core business of the company. The counter-
part barrier is then the lack of experience in the exploration of novel areas,
crowded out by business routines. The routine business feels easy and con-
fident; exploring anything new seems difficult and intimidating. Thus the
lack of rehearsal of necessary new explorative behaviors becomes an imped-
iment to change. To quote one participant: “If we don’t exercise the ‘change
muscle’ now, we won’t have it at our disposal during future setbacks.”
Rehearsing change serves the same purpose as going regularly to the gym:
to be in good shape as a company for future challenges.
The need for rehearsal, or the practicing, of change was observed in other
ways too. The fear of failure was one strong manifestation. The nomencla-
ture of experimentation invited frequent discussion: “What if the project
fails?” (which is OK because it is “only” an experiment); and “How do we
know this [experimental idea] is the solution?” (which we do not; that is
why we are experimenting). Experimentation thus enabled the rehearsal of
change, without the necessity of avoiding a perceived failure at any cost.