In my original Sliding Scales post I introduced the concepts of creative destruction and creative recombination. These terms come from Eric Abrahamson’s book Change Without Pain.

Creative destruction means that the change is huge, sweeping, and attempts to be a fresh start. At an organizational level a company might implement creative destruction by selling off a division or completely relocating operations to a new state. At a personal level, leaving the country and completely re-designing your lifestyle certainly qualifies as an 8 or 9.

Creative recombination, on the other hand, attempts to use systems and structures that are already in place to accomplish a new purpose. The changes are more gradual and less disruptive than creatively destructive change. Organizational creative recombination could include establishing cross-functional teams to pollinate ideas through their networks. Personal creative recombination could be as minor as using existing jobs skills in a new position.

Now that the definitions are set, how do we choose what setting on the 1-10 scale to employ? Here are 3 questions to ask:

Is there anything to recombine?
In a genuinely corrupt, degraded, or obsolete system, the raw materials needed for recombination might not be available. The less there is to work with and recombine, the more a situation calls for destruction and rebuilding. On a physical level I am reminded of a building I drive by everyday. Several months ago this old factory building was in the process of being renovated into housing. Sadly the building caught fire and burnt beyond the point of salvage. Now it is sitting, decaying and waiting to be bulldozed.

The same conditions can arise in an individual life or in an organization. In cities and departments that are rife with corruption, voters have been known the “throw the bums out” in hope of cleansing the system and starting again. Personal relationships can become so toxic that there is no reasonably choice other than moving on.

How much resistance is there to change?
In his book, Abrahamson believes that companies that have become change avoiders can benefit from large scale creative destruction. It may seem counterintuitive to recommend the most drastic change to those who resist it the most, but overwhelming the resistance may be the only way to make change take root. Attempting to recombine elements when those elements are digging in their heels to stop all progress is setting yourself up for failure.

Addicts provide a good example of people who vehemently resist change. In many cases of addiction, only a complete and sudden withdrawal – going “cold turkey” – can help the addict break the habit. On the other extreme, people interested in personal development often find that they can’t integrate sweeping change all at once. Rather, they slowly incorporate new habits and priorities into the framework of their existing lives. Over time, the change can be quite dramatic, but it is a very gradual process.

How fast is the change needed?
The existence of a genuine crisis plays a role here as well. Creative recombination takes time to make an impact. Destruction and reconstruction can be much quicker. In a company that is threatened by an agile and powerful new competitor, it may be necessary to completely reconfigure how business is done.

Because creative destruction can be difficult and painful, it shouldn’t be used lightly. Asking individuals or organizations to endure large scale change time and time again almost inevitably results in change fatigue. This fatigue will lead to resistance to change, which will necessitate even more radical changes.

Do you see the vicious circle here?

Change when needed, but keep enough stability so that the system doesn’t fall apart.

In the next post, I’ll conclude this series and provide an overview of the change process. If you have any experience with creative destruction or creative recombination, please share your stories in the comments.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.