Although never introduced with fanfare and seldom celebrated,

small, incremental organizational changes have a big payback.

New research looks at these events, and at the unsung
changemasters and their motivations.

Igniting Organizationad
Change from Below:
The Power of PersonalInitiative
ALAN L. FROHMAN

rganizations need to constantly adapt to “transformation”-or something akin to it.

0 changes in their environment. Their suc-
cess-even survival-depends on it.
While considerable research has centered
on major, broad-scale changes such as reengi-
neer&, divestitures and alliances, and total
quality management, there is no doubt that
more localized changes, though seldom head-
line events, are equally necessary for an orga-
nization’s success. Consider, for example,
modifications in product design that reflect a
deeper understanding of consumer needs, a
revised marketing approach that builds on
new information technology, or improved
cost controls that make project management
more efficient.
All of these can impact the bottom line
tremendously. Our study of local changes in
corporations across America found the aver-
age rate of return to be in excess of 100 per-
cent within a one-year time period!
To help companies become more adap-
tive, most current approaches recommend
This can take various forms, including reengi-
neering, downsizing, building a virtual orga-
nization, launching total quality manage-
ment, or redefining core competencies to
build competitive advantage. The appropri-
ateness of an approach depends on the histo-
ry of the company, the depth of its pockets,
and the degree of desperation it faces in meet-
ing a new challenge.
This concern with transformation has di-
verted our attention from the study of how
micro approaches to change help an organi-
zation adapt. Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s work
is a source of much useful information on the
topic. The study described here is similar to
Kanter’s work in that it also examines those
individuals who effect change in their oper-
ations, then see the change institutionalized.
Both Kanter’s research and this investigation
look at change efforts that start locally, not
enterprise-wide, that are incremental, not
revolutionary, and that were championed by

Mark A. Frohman provided invaluable assistance in developing the ideas for this article.
~NmRI997 39
 EXHIBIT
ORGANIZATIONS
middle managers, not the visionary senior
executive.
THE RESEARCH APPROACH
We analyzed successful examples of incre-
mental change in over two dozen organiza-
tions, ranging in size from a $5 million con-
tract R&D organization to several of the
top-ten Fortune 500 industrial companies (see
Exhibit 1). The industries studied included
service companies as well as manufacturers,
both consumer and industrial.
First, we asked a senior executive, in many
cases the CEO, to identify situations where
there had been effective change or organiza-
tional adaptation. We did not mean major
changes in strategy or restructuring, but rather
changes that were less grand in the sense of ef-
fective recognition and adaptation to prob-
lems, opportunities, or changed circumstances.
In order to satisfy our research conditions,
the changes had to (a) positively impact the
corporation’s bottom line (a positive return
from the change was expected and delivered),
and (b) become adopted as a new practice,
policy, procedure, product, or market. In oth-
er words, the change had to become part of
the way the organization did business, not just
a one-shot activity. All the examples discussed
in this article satisfy both criteria.
We also asked the executive to identify
the key actors in those situations. Usually, the
40 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS
1
CONTRIBUTING DATA
executive could answer this question easily.
In fact, an interesting observation developed
early in the research: the person identified as
bringing about one change had often brought
about several.
Next, we talked with the key actors: How
did they identify that a problem or opportu-
nity existed? What did they do and why?
Who else was involved? We validated the
data by interviewing people identified as be-
ing involved, and also asked them questions
about the organization, their attitudes toward
their bosses, peers, and subordinates, what
caused them to join the organization, their ca-
reer visions, and what excited or disillusioned
them.
All in all, we interviewed more than 100
people, representing functional areas that in-
cluded R&D, marketing, production, general
management, human resources, and finance.
Each person was identified as a “mover and
shaker,” someone who brought about change
that was constructive in both its conduct and
outcome. Participants ranged in ages from
mid-20s to mid-60s. All were citizens of the
U.S., U.K., or Canada. Most had undergradu-
ate degrees, several had MBAs or PhDs, and
a few had no college degree. Salaries ranged
from $20,000 a year to around $200,000, with
most in the $30,000 to $100,000 range.
We then analyzed this interview data to
sort out the common characteristics and key
dimensions of the individuals identified as
initiating change. Did these individuals, as a
group, have anything in common? What
drove them? How did their organizations
treat them? Ultimately, what can we learn
from them to build more adaptive organiza-
tions?
The major findings of the research are
summarized in Exhibit 2. Before discussing
these findings and their implications, let’s
clarify the kind of events studied by looking at
four examples.

Example 1:
New Project Management Procedures
At the time of our interview, Fern Martin was Alan L. Frohman is president of Frohman As-
a 45-year-old newly selected project manager sociates and a senior associate with Rath &
for one of the largest U.S. building materials Strong, Inc., both management consulting
producers. She had recently joined the com- firms based in Lexington, Massachusetts. Mr.
pany after several years as a consultant. Mar- Frohman earned his A.B. from the University
ried with two children, she seemed to find the of Rochester and his MS. and Ph.D. from the
time to do everything that needed to be done Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He
and to do it well. An effective project worker, specializes in improving companies’ bottom-
she had been appointed to a project leader line performance through innovation in strate-
position as the organization grew. gy and organization. His clients include
Soon thereafter, she noticed that the Gillette, Pfizer, Anheuser-Busch, and Hewlett-
mechanisms for matching project leaders Packard as well as small and medium-sized
with projects, selecting people to work on firms in the U.S. and overseas. He has pub-
teams, developing project plans, and control- lished two books and over 60 articles in the ar-
ling projects needed considerable improve- eas of strategy, structure, organizational be-
ment. The corporate staff that was then re- havior, and leadership, including The Middle
sponsible for these mechanisms handled Management Challenge (New York, McGraw-
project management in a perfunctory way, Hill, 1993) which he co-authored with Leonard
with little feeling for what it meant to be a W. Johnson.
project leader or what assistance the teams
needed. Although the corporate staff was
sympathetic to Fern’s concerns, this group
was not inclined to change its practices. So,
Fern decided to act.
First, she organized a periodic meeting of
all project managers to begin sharing experi-
ences, frustrations, problems, and support.
This evolved into a regular lunch group with
shared leadership. Gradually, the group
identified several problems, but felt that it
was not in a position to take much action on
these.
Fern then created proposals for what she
felt a project-planning system and format
should look like. With the help of several se-
nior line managers, she was able to get the
 EXHIBIT
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
1. Peoplewho broughtabout the changeswere easilyidentified.
2. Theywere often not on the company’s“high potential”list.
3. Theywere directedby organizationneedsto go beyondtheir jobs.
4. Theirlearningfocusedon meetingthe organizationneed.
5. Theywere driveninternallyto makea difference.
6. Theywere action-oriented.
7. Theyfocusedon resultsmore than teamwork.
proposal implemented. Over the next four
years, Fern used the same approach to change
the mechanism for recording costs on pro-
jects, assigning people, and implementing
controls. She was also responsible for manag-
ing the second- and third-largest projects in
the company’s history. After five years as a
project manager with ever-increasing respon-
sibility, Fern left the organization after a clash
with the president.
Example 2:
Introduction of Plastic Parts
Dave Bedford, a 42-year-old engineer, had
spent his entire career with the company and
looked forward to staying with the organiza-
tion until retirement. He had always worked
on development projects and was more shy
than Fern. He, too, had several children at
home but many fewer outside interests. He
was seen as a competent, but not spectacular,
performer.
In creating the design for a new vehicle
model and examining the tradeoffs involved,
Dave realized that substituting lighter weight
plastics for metal would be more cost-effective
and improve the vehicle’s performance con-
siderably. However, the organization had little
experience with plastics and thus provided lit-
tle support for the idea. Dave took it upon
himself to call on potential suppliers to learn
more about the benefits of plastics. He per-
formed preliminary analyses of both the tech-
nical performance as well as the economic
parameters of substituting plastics for metal.
42 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS
2
Because no one in the organization
strongly supported his activity, Dave pur-
sued it in a way that was visible but did not
produce an enormous amount of attention.
After establishing in his own mind that sub-
stituting plastic for metal could be very ben-
eficial, Dave worked through organizational
channels to propose a series of projects to
support testing plastic components and, if
the tests proved successful, their introduc-
tion. After persisting for more than nine
months, Dave received some support and an
opportunity to develop and test plastic parts
in trial vehicles.
After two more years of development and
testing, the plastic parts were introduced as
standard in several of the vehicles Dave had
been working on. Meanwhile, Dave was pro-
moted to another project and continues to
work enthusiastically for the organization.
Example 3:
Converting a Software Product
At age 32, Ian had been with a software de-
velopment company for five years. When
the company was bought by a larger organi-
zation, he worked reasonably happily as a
mid-level manager in the new setting. A nat-
ural salesman, Ian liked people. Nothing
curbed his openness or his ability to put peo-
ple at ease. He was highly regarded by his
managers.
Years earlier, the larger company had de-
veloped a core software product for defense
contractors. Ian recognized that this product
had matured in its current markets, and if the
company could not identify new markets for
the software, the product would lose money.
Because of his previous background, Ian saw
the potential for modifying this product and
selling it not only to defense contractors but
also to corporations for industrial use.
So, over the course of several years, Ian
used government contracts, internal R&D
funds, and much of his own time to pursue
product modification. The software involved
complex code and sophisticated calculations
related to physics and chemistry. When he
couldn’t find internal experts to help him un-
derstand how the product needed to be
changed, Ian either read on his own or called
on outside help.
He received no additional compensation,
and, in fact, several of his colleagues who
were working on traditional projects were
promoted ahead of him. While this did not
bother Ian very much, he acknowledged that
not receiving any recognition for having tak-
en risks or exerting extra effort did. Now, two
years later, Ian is clearly making progress, but
it is too early to know if he will be successful.
Example 4:
On the Way to California
Rick Lee (the youngest of our examples) is a
29-year-old researcher for a small technology-
based company. He is quiet, thoughtful, and
friendly, although more introverted than ex-
troverted. He prefers a casual work atmo-
sphere. Having been with the company since
graduation, Rick’s industrial experience is
limited. Like Ian, Rick has also just started a
family. He is the only person in our sample
born on the West Coast.
As part of a group of scientists, Rick at-
tended a monthly company meeting, initiat-
ed and run by a consultant, to discuss new
markets for the company’s products. At the
first few meetings, Rick reacted thoughtfully
to the discussion, commenting where he
could and always listening attentively. When
the time came to present new ideas, he vol-
unteered to lead off. His presentation was di-
vided into three parts: what new products
could be built or markets opened directly
from the company’s technology, what evolu-
tionary steps could be taken, and what
“leaps” the company might take in the future.
This third area-which he labeled “California
Dreaming”-was a fascinating stretch for
both the company and himself.
Within eight weeks, he developed a strat-
egy for proceeding with the first area, even
though he did not have either the formal re-
sponsibility or resources. He brought his plan
(which included potential customers) to his
boss, got approval, and began implementa-
tion without halting any of his other work.
After several successful meetings run by
the consultant, Rick politely suggested that an
insider should take over the group; it would
be best for the company if the responsibility
for continuation and success were internal.
He volunteered to set up the next several
meetings, i.e., arrange for a room, meals, etc.
He developed agendas, wrote up minutes,
and informed upper management about
questions and suggestions.
ANALYZING THE RESULTS
Although these four examples represent a
very small portion of our interviews, they
help to clarify the research findings high-
lighted in Exhibit 2. Let’s take a closer look at
each of those points.
People Who Brought About the Changes
Were Easily Identified
Initially we thought that the initiators would
be hard to identify. This was not so. The
CEOs, senior VI’s, and their colleagues and
peers clearly knew who the initiators were.
They were differentiated both by their very
active, energetic, focused behavior, and by
their attitudes. Their attitudes were indepen-
dent yet loyal to the organization, respectful
yet questioning of the status quo and author-
ity, determined to make a constructive impact
yet not driven by personal ambition. They
were not the “organization men” of the 1950s
and 1960s. Nor were they part of the “what’s
in it for me” generation of the 1970s and
1980s. Still, the list of names was never long.
Often Not on the Company’s “High
Potential” List
We initially thought that once these people
were identified, they would be seen as “su-
perstars” and placed on management’s high
potential list. They were not. Rather, those
who made it to the high potential list were
viewed as leaders and managers: people who
understood how to organize and direct
groups of people working for them. Initiators
were more independent, quick to act, and
often brought about change not initially sanc-
tioned by their bosses. While they were re-
spected, the respect was guarded.
No more than half of the initiators were
seen as having potential for promotion to
vice president or higher in their organiza-
tions. The reasons for this may lie, in part,
with the characteristics that are important
within the organization’s formal perfor-
mance appraisal and manpower planning
systems. The initiators did not rate highly
on the traits these systems associate with
“high potential.” The initiators were not
powerful, forceful, or visionary. Rather,
they tended to be adaptable, logical, and in-
cremental in their approach. They were not
concerned with power and resources, but
with solving problems and producing re-
sults. If they saw a problem, they looked to
themselves to initiate action to deal with it.
Their ambition was problem-focused, not
promotion-focused.
In many ways, these people were not
complete and total supporters of the system,
even though they were committed to the or-
ganization. Thus, they were able to step back
and question what was done and how it was
done. For example, they examined the num-
ber of meetings and questioned their appro-
priateness, or they looked at the company’s
assumptions about what customers valued
and questioned the validity of these assump-
tions. They looked at how products were built
and asked if new methods or materials would
be better. It appears that many human re-
44 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS
source appraisal systems did not value these
behaviors highly.
Directed by Organization Needs to Go
Beyond Their Jobs
The research also found that the initiator was
directed by what he or she felt would benefit
the organization. Initiators did not simply do
their jobs; they went far beyond their job re-
quirements. They took initiative, thus the
term “initiators.”
They understood where the organization
was going. Married to a perception of an op-
portunity, they single-handedly started the
drive toward action and implementation. And
they persisted, often despite resistance and
disapproval. They were not entrepreneurs in
the traditional sense. They did not deal with
frustration by considering leaving the compa-
ny to set up their own business. They were
impatient, but persistent.
What seems to typify the process for all
the initiators is displayed in Exhibit 3. Note, in
the exhibit, that the initiator carries the
change forward and the organization “ac-
cepts” it after it is proven, not before. The or-
ganization does not support the new idea,
but “lets it happen,” albeit reluctantly.
Learning Focused on Meeting
Organization Needs
In every instance, initiators had to learn some-
thing new: They grew in knowledge, experi-
ence, and skill as a result of bringing about the
change. But in each case, what they had
learned was task-specific. Their learning was
within the context of the change they were
effecting or was directed at acquiring the
knowledge necessary to complete their self-
initiated activity. If they were not working on
the problem, they probably would not have
sought to acquire the new knowledge or skill.
Their growth and learning was driven by
their need to make a difference.
This finding reinforces, from a slightly
different angle, the concept of the “learning
organization.” It suggests that learning, at
least for some types of people, occurs when
 EXHIBIT
THETYPICALINITIATIONPROCESS.
preceded by a challenging problem. In this
study, then, the concept of a learning organi-
zation encompasses individuals who are
learning new skills in order to bring about
changes that can help the organization ac-
complish its goals. Learning is internally mo-
tivated and directed by specific tasks, chal-
lenges, or goals.
Driven Internally to Make a Difference
Most initiators weren’t really interested in pro-
motion or moving up the ladder. Rather, they
were interested in “making a difference.” The
absence of opportunity for promotion, title, sta-
tus, or perks was a far lesser concern than not
being able to do what they felt was necessary.
When asked to describe what motivated
them, initiators used words such as “avoiding
defeat,” “fear of failure,” and “fear of not mak-
ing a difference.” As one respondent put it,
“I’m most afraid of not making a difference, of
being chained to my desk.”
Several initiators, interestingly, used the
expression “to turn it up a notch” to describe
their response to a problem. When they saw
something that needed to be done, it both di-
rected and increased their energy. There was
a tremendous amount of frustration when an
initiator saw problems not being worked on
3
or opportunities being lost. And rather than
spending time trying to convince manage-
ment that something needed to be done, the
initiator jumped in to bring about the appro-
priate changes and actions.
Cliff Hakim, in his book We Are AZZSelf-
Employed (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.,
1994), captures the attitudes of the initiator
quite well. Hakim uses the label “self-em-
ployed attitude” to include taking responsi-
bility for growth and development, making a
contribution, and maintaining a clear focus.
At the core of this attitude is the ability to in-
tegrate independence and interdependence.
Action-Oriented
In all cases, initiators acted with a sense of ur-
gency. The absence of resources, structure,
information, or support did not deter their ef-
forts. When they didn’t have upper manage-
ment’s support, they believed they could gain
support by showing initial progress and the
apparent benefits to the organization. The ini-
tiators’ strong bias for action overcame the or-
ganizational hurdles, barriers, or insensitivity,
as well as their own lack of knowledge.
Without waiting for orders or approvals,
initiators saw a problem and attacked it. They
saw that the job got done based on their own
 EXHIBIT 4
LEVELS OF ACTION
Decreasing time
to action to
solve a problem
energy. Proactive, inquisitive self-starters,
they pushed to find new and better ways to
do things. They didn’t accept the status quo.
They were curious and skeptical, asking to
understand how things are done.
All too often, others see taking action in
terms of “dealing with a bureaucracy’ rather
than “as solving the problem.” Initiators often
found ways to avoid the bureaucracy, believ-
ing that bureaucratic delay could mean being
too late. They were clearly at the top of the
“levels of action” pyramid show in Exhibit 4.
The initiator personally acted to see that
the job got done. Recall how David Bedford,
with the help of others in the organization,
carried out the tradeoff analysis between plas-
tics or metals. Remember that Fern developed
the new format for planning and controlling
projects, then brought her proposal to man-
agement. Ian decided to learn more about
physics and chemistry as well as the coding of
the core product to see how it could be mod-
ified for the new market. Rick developed
plans for marketing actions he would take
and chaired the first meeting himself.
Action Within the Context of the
Organization
As one initiator explained, “I’m conservative,
but not risk averse. I’m conservative in the
sense that I accept the structure of the current
46 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS
organization and want to work within it
where possible, but I’m not risk averse in the
sense that I’m not open to change and willing
to change the organization.”
These words captured a sense of responsi-
bility both for and to the organization. This ini-
tiator felt responsibility for helping the organi-
zation achieve its goals, but did not feel
constrained and controlled by current proce-
dures, practices, and hierarchy. At the same
time, his sense of responsibility to the organi-
zation prevented him from being a rebel in his
attempts to bring about change. In fact, his at-
tempts at change were constructive, and
change developed incrementally rather than
radically.
In accepting the framework of the orga-
nization, initiators accept the organization’s
goals, mission, and vision as expressions of
what the company is trying to accomplish.
They also accept that the organization itself
has a legitimate purpose for being and its sur-
vival is justified. To initiators, change without
destruction means that the change needs to
be adaptive-incremental not radical or revo-
lutionary.
Initiators’ high levels of energy and
strong desire to make a difference almost
guarantee action. Without the balance of a
commitment to positive results for the orga-
nization, this energy could lead to action in
the person’s best interest, not for the organi-
zation’s greater good.
This feeling of responsibility for the orga-
nization’s success and the search for its
preservation and prosperity constrains an ini-
tiator’s range of actions. The commitment fo-
cuses the behavior on what will benefit the or-
ganization and requires that the individual
balance a personal need for results and for
making a difference with actions that are
helpful to the organization and consistent
with its goals.
The initiators we interviewed expressed
this balance in various ways. As one person
put it, “I’m driven to make a change. I have a
tremendous sense of urgency, but my drive
and sense of urgency are required by the or-
ganization for the organization to survive.”
Another initiator described himself as “fierce-
ly independent and self-sufficient,” but also
as a person who had chosen to “work within
the system.”
Initiators Expected to Succeed
It would be incomprehensible for initiators to
approach a problem from any perspective
other than expecting success. Of course, they
knew they would encounter setbacks. Life
doesn’t come any other way. But, over the
long haul, they were clear about wanting to
accomplish something truly important. They
were committed to it, and knew deep down
that somehow they would succeed.
By nature, most people are impatient: they
want and expect immediate results. Initiators
set realistic expectations about the rate of
change. They map out a step-by-step plan and
stay on course. If there is one element that de-
scribes those who successfully take personal
initiative, it is their dogged sense of purpose,
commitment to keep going, and understand-
ing that it takes time. They are best described
as managing by “nudging”: a push here, a pull
there, constant pressure for improvement,
steady gains, excitement about progress, and
an eye constantly on the ball. Sure, they make
adjustments, but everything has its purpose
and they do not act impulsively.
Focused on Results More Than Teamwork
The initiators we studied had a desire to work
constructively with others. This is quite dis-
tinct from a focus on teamwork, and, in fact,
none of the initiators emphasized teamwork.
However, they were sensitive to the need to
take into account the goals, needs, and expec-
tations of others, those who were above them
as well as their peers and their subordinates.
This sensitivity to the feelings of others
did not deter the initiators from following a
course of action when they felt the action was
justified. However, they were not blind to the
impact of their action on others. They could
anticipate when feelings, sensitivities, or ex-
pectations might be legitimately disturbed,
and deal with these feelings.
They had little time for, and interest in,
politics and managing the appearances of
their actions. A few even said they could use
“a good PR man.” But this was said jokingly,
as if to acknowledge that while their image
within the company might suffer, it was not
significant enough to deal with. They be-
lieved the results of action would speak for
themselves.
BUILDING A CLIMATE TO
IGNITE CHANGE
Most organizations today do not foster condi-
tions in which personal initiative can ignite
change. While the leaders may defend them-
selves as wanting, valuing, and rewarding ini-
tiative, their behavior actually suggests the
opposite. Following are three examples of
companies in which this happens, followed
by a fourth, more elaborate example of an or-
ganization that truly supports initiative-tak-
ing and has achieved bottom-line results
because of this support.
The Autocracy
The M Company was started 20 years ago by
two entrepreneurs who correctly perceived a
market niche for a new kind of software and
successfully filled it. One of the founders left
after six years, cashing in his stock, and the
other still runs the company.
While the current CEO talks about em-
ployees taking responsibility, they don’t. It
isn’t because they do not want to, or even in
some cases, try. Employees simply know it is
to no avail. The CEO runs the $1 billion com-
pany like an autocracy. He decides who gets
hired, promoted, and rewarded. He must ap-
prove all ads. He is even intimately involved
in recreational activities for off-site meetings.
The CEO’s authority comes from his po-
sitions: founder, chairman of the board,
president, CEO, COO, and chief technical of-
ficer. His direct reports gain their authority
from their relationship to him. He motivates,
or attempts to, by bonuses, trips, and pun-
ishment or ridicule. Punishment usually
takes the form of excluding people from key
tt?mmx 1997 47
meetings and messages. Also, he is not shy
about letting others know who is “not doing
his job.”
One employee explained, “The top man
determines what happens throughout the
company by orders, over involvement, and
second guessing every important thing we
do.” Another said: “He tells us he wants ini-
tiative, but we know better-he wants obedi-
ence. I really think his fondest dream is for
employees to read his mind and do what he
would do in every situation.”
At the same time, however, employees
feel a comforting absence of responsibility. Af-
ter all, since they have little influence or au-
thority, how can they have any responsibility
for the outcome? Several people explained
that they have no desire to leave the organiza-
tion because “obedience creates job security.”
The place is not without energy. But the
energy is directed at daily tasks, guessing
what the big boss is doing, and protecting
oneself from peer politics. The few people
who have shown considerable initiative have
left-in spite of the high salaries. Those who
stay feel frustrated and concerned, but they
do their jobs as expected. Initiative, if it occurs
at all, is narrowly constrained to doing tasks
faster or better. This is not without merit, but
does not produce creativity or breakthrough
improvements.
How has the company succeeded? Basi-
cally, by being the first to spot and fill a key
market niche. It has a good product and the
right market-to its credit. But, it has not
maintained the leadership position and has
fallen badly behind younger companies. Only
a significant installed base keeps them from
sinking further behind.
The Meritocracy
A long-established producer of electrical fix-
tures for industrial use, this company was
founded in the early 1900s and is now domi-
nated by engineers with MBAs. Based in
Georgia, the company sells $700 million
worth of product a year and is growing slow-
ly. It recently expanded overseas through ac-
quisitions, but business results from these
48 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS
ventures have been very disappointing.
The company’s products are highly re-
garded. However, larger as well as smaller
competitors have eroded its once clear lead-
ership position. There also continues to be a
fair degree of turnover at the senior levels.
The president beats the drum for initia-
tive and employee responsibility. He talks
about it in speeches, writes about it in the
company newsletter, and offers an award for
employees who show special initiative. He re-
peatedly tells them to take initiative, take re-
sponsibility. But it doesn’t happen.
Everyone’s job is spelled out in fine detail.
There is a very strong vertical organization
and each vice president runs his own silo. The
organization runs like a factory. Everything
that can be documented, programmed,
scheduled, and controlled is. Procedures
must be followed. Meetings must be finely
scheduled down to the smallest agenda item.
As one employee expressed it, “We epito-
mize the idea, ‘If something is worth doing,
it’s worth writing a procedure for.“’ Rational-
ity dominates, issues are analyzed and debat-
ed, and ultimately a decision gets made by a
committee or group of managers. Usually all
the available facts and figures are collected
and examined. As one person put it: “We op-
erate by the 3 C’s-calculate, control, and con-
form.“
People feel secure working here and be-
lieve they will be treated fairly, especially re-
garding compensation. But the senior man-
agers who have left disagreed with the
president about roles and responsibilities.
They wanted more say. He wanted them to
run their departments his way. Because re-
sponsibility was constrained to the person’s
functional silo, there was little cooperation
across departments. When it did occur, it was
usually politically motivated. For example,
two vice presidents ganged up on a third who
was thought to be highly vulnerable.
Initiative here is also highly constrained.
Recognition goes to people who persisted
with difficult problems or customers, not for
innovations or bright new ideas. In fact, an
initiator is not as well rewarded as someone
who presents a sound argument for higher
pay, based on job offers from other compa-
nies. Initiatives to bring about change use an
engineering vocabulary: system redesign,
business efficiency improvement, and, of
course, reengineering.
The head of product development told
us, “Each product design team goes through
a rigid, highly detailed product development
methodology. We carefully lay out the steps
and schedules for all our work and report
against them religiously.” And without a work done.” Another said: “We spend more
hint of emotion he added, “And we are al-
most always exceeding the budget and
schedule.”
The organization is the model of analysis
and linear thinking-but at the cost of the
spirit and feeling that comes from genuine
collaboration. People conform to the values
and style of the organization-efficient, clear,
crisp, on-time, and on-budget. The energy for
initiative taking is there, but in a highly con-
strained way. It must be focused on the pre-
scribed goals and tasks. The things that need
to get done get in the way of those that might
be done.
Our interviews in the company identified
a variety of factors that hindered initiative:
short-term pressures, time to get approvals,
inadequate resources, shifting priorities, the
number of approvals required, and complex
organization structures. All relate to methods,
procedures, and task execution-the “how”
of getting things done. The results suggest a
creeping bureaucracy that has choked the en-
ergy out of action. In fact, the overall level of
initiative in the company was less than the av-
erage in our sample of 169 U.S. companies.
The Social Club
This organization discourages personal initia-
tive the most. The individual is first and fore-
most a member of a team or, more than like-
ly, several teams. One team is the employee’s
work group. The other teams are organized
ad hoc around special initiatives (all of which
start from the senior management team) or a
need for horizontal integration. An example
of the latter is a customer focus team com-
posed of R&D and sales.
Headquartered in New York, this $7.5 bil-
lion company sells commodity and specialty
chemicals worldwide and operates plants in
the U.S., Canada, U.K., Belgium, and Japan, in
addition to ventures in several communist
countries. Executives constantly travel. Fre-
quent meetings become big events-this is
how people find out what is really going on.
One person told us, “We spend so much
time in meetings we have little time to get our
time prioritizing our meetings than we do
meeting our priorities.”
The dominant behavior is conformity.
The team’s agenda is followed. What gets
communicated, and how it is communicated,
are all prescribed. If an initiative is important,
a team gets assigned to it.
People are very polite to each other. There
is little open hostility or rivalry, but divergent
ideas are not encouraged. The president, a
man in his early 60s with a strong financial
and general management background, is the
final decision maker and ultimate imposer of
the team ethic. However, he maintains control
over the top management team. This team is
more an implementor of his will and logic
than an open environment for top-level deci-
sion making.
Teams aren’t really the heart of the prob-
lem. What happens, however, in this envi-
ronment is that the meetings drain so much
energy that personal initiative is stifled. This
happens in two ways. The first is the deadly
amount of time meetings consume. Teams
spend several days to decide issues other or-
ganizations would dispense with in one hour!
Second is the numbing process that every
new idea must go through. It must be re-
viewed, and often revised, by at least one
team and revisited as time passes. While this
supports communication, it does not lead to a
sense of urgency.
One of the vice presidents reported, “We
get so caught up in attending meetings we
sometimes lose sight of the critical business is-
sues. We focus too much on our calendars
and too little on our competition.”
Compared with the meritocracy, this
company’s friendliness and absence of de-
w.QmI997 49
structive politics are refreshing. But the ineffi-
ciency of the network of teams is nearly para-
lyzing. This organization evidences less initia-
tive-taking behavior than either the autocracy
or the meritocracy. An essentially sound
idea-teamwork-has been carried to an ex-
treme at the expense of productive and cre-
ative individual behavior.
The Balanced Organization
Clearly, strong leadership, rational systems,
and teamwork are three positive attributes of
any organization. But focusing too much on
any one element means that individuals must
conform to a set of rules or norms that pre-
vent the organization from dealing effective-
ly with external changes. Balancing all three
areas and focusing on the organization’s goals
and strategy is the key to success. Companies
that can do this well will prevail because they
will unleash employees’ personal initiative.
Take the example of the central research
organization of a multibillion-dollar pharma-
ceutical company that has the ingredients to
succeed. The company’s goal is clear-to be
No. 1 in its industry. The CEO’s goals are the
basis of a top-down, annual goal-setting pro-
cess extending through the management of
the research organization. Department goals
are expected to be tied to upper level goals.
While teamwork is mentioned, achieving goals
is more important. Systems and teams are seen
as a means to an end. They evolve over time.
The people who work on them are clearly seen
as support-not as key decision makers.
Perhaps the most outstanding character-
istic of this balanced organization is the lati-
tude of behavior. The research organization’s
senior management team has varied views on
organizational structure and reliance on ex-
ternal resources. While this creates some
clashes, it also generates creative and elegant
solutions. The members of the group do not
overly concern themselves with how effec-
tively they work as a team. Instead, they re-
lentlessly concern themselves with sustaining
their No. 1 position.
The dominant factors for success were re-
flected in these typical statements: “We have
50 ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS
one thing in common-a clear vision of what
we want to accomplish and a clear under-
standing that we have to do things better and
faster to get there.” tiBecause we are bound by
common goals we have freedom to act and
commit our resources to reach these goals.”
Because each research group is relatively
autonomous, there is considerable freedom to
take initiative. Each unit feels responsible for
achieving its own goals, even if it must repli-
cate resources in other units: effectiveness
over efficiency. Rewards are not based on
style but on goal achievement. Credibility is
based on delivering what you promise. Mis-
takes are understood, as long as you explain
them and do not try to hide or excuse them.
Initiative taking is more prolific here than
in other organizations, including other re-
search organizations. Even bosses who might
otherwise be over-controlling find the im-
pulse to do so tempered by the emphasis on
goal achievement. There is no real system
here to constrain initiative, only goals to focus
it. In fact, its financial, human resource, and
information systems are rather “underdevel-
oped” compared with other research organi-
zations.
The balance of approaches permits initia-
tive taking. Rather than rely on systems,
teamwork, or authority to keep things on
track, the head of research moves quickly in
all areas to achieve a dynamic tension that
spurs individuals to act.
He uses the same mechanisms other ex-
ecutives use to keep the organization focused:
n strong leadership,
n a top-down goal setting process,
n clear vision supported by clear goals,
n a pay system that bases 25 percent of
the compensation on goal performance, and
n at the top, a strong department/vertical
organization structure of experienced people.
All of these mechanisms keep the organi-
zation focused on what needs to be done with
appropriate responsibility. Yet, if these were
the main determinants of behavior and cli-
mate, individuals would feel trapped. There
would be no room for free expression or cre-
ativity. But this top executive deliberately en-
courages:
 EXI-IIBIT 5
BALANCING MECHANISMS

High
Climatefor
Climatefor chaos initiativetaking
and/or anarchy (the Balanced
Organization)
Mechanismsthat
providelatitudeand
createwaves Climatefor a stable
Climatefor alienation productionorientation
and frustration (the SocialClub, Meritocracy,
and Autocracy)
Low
Low High
Mechanismsthat provideorder,
organizationand focus

n a wide latitude for acceptable behavior
(e.g., no dress code, informal hours, freedom
to question),
n deliberate diversity on all teams,
n corporate communications that em-
phasize the important contribution and re-
sponsibility of the individual,
n irreverence for established ways,
n day-to-day affairs usually delegated to
the lowest possible level,
n “wave makers” promoted to senior
management positions,
n wide use of ad hoc teams,
n a project-team overlay on the strong
vertical organization, and
n rewards for people who push for new
ways, new ideas, and higher levels of perfor-
mance.
These mechanisms result in a looser
structure in which individuals can take initia-
tive readily, if they want. As the leader of re-
search states, “We emphasize resourcefulness
not resources here.” In addition, when hiring
he looks for the kind of people who have
shown initiative; who are curious, skeptical,
and inquisitive; and who indicate that they
want to learn and grow rather than master
one thing and do it well over and over again.
He wants people who are independent, with
a logical yet flexible approach to situations,
and with drive. These are not the types of
people for whom most organizations actively
search. They are often viewed as not fitting in
or as too challenging.
LOOKING FOR LESSONS
So what can we learn from these four organi-
zations? First, the answer to the question of
how organizations can foster initiative is not a
simple one. We are trying to indirectly, even
remotely, influence a behavior that must
come from inside a person-hence the word
“personal” in front of initiative.
Second, “wave making” mechanisms
must be in place to allow the latitude for ini-
tiative to occur. To start something new re-
quires the opportunity (latitude) to step away
from the traditional and current conventions.
Counterbalancing the effect of the systems
and procedures needed to establish a com-
mon focus and predictable behavior for coor-
dinating complex tasks requires deliberate
and strong mechanisms that permit initiative-
taking. Few organizations recognize the im-
portance of this second point.
Third, initiative must be focused and di-
rected clearly and consistently on corporate
objectives. A wide range of mechanisms can
help. These include clear goals, top-down
goal setting, congruent reward systems, and
the like. Most organizations already recognize
the importance of this point.
 The fourth lesson is that establishing and
maintaining a climate of initiative-taking is a
constant balancing act. And it is the leader’s
role to create balancing mechanisms for sta-
bility as well as mechanisms that will encour-
age creative thinking and behavior. See
Exhibit 5.
RECALIBRATING OUR THINKING
Reengineering, redesigning, and restructur-
ing do not obliterate ineffective organizations.
Rather, they obliterate the focus on an essen-
tial ingredient of traditionally successful orga-
nizations: fully utilizing employees’ energy
and commitment. We need to develop pro-
cesses and procedures that support the intel-
lectual efforts and contributions of individu-
als. The recent focus on reengineering,
realigning, retooling, and restructuring has
ignored how important it is to support the in-
tellectual, emotional, and physical contribu-
tions of people in the organization. We have
lost sight of the fact that the key contributors
in the organization are its members, not the
hardware or systems.
Unfortunately, reengineering too often
treats the organization as if it were a machine
that generates products and services. Certain-
ly, organizations contain processes and pro-
cedures but, more important, they are also
composed of individuals and groups whose
singular and collective energy is the key in-
gredient to survival. All too often, there is too
little consideration in reengineering for the
policies, procedures, and physical, social, and
technical arrangements that help the individ-
ual make a maximum contribution to achiev-
ing organizational goals.
This mechanistic approach to improving
organizations is based on a fascination with
what can be quantified or counted. For exam-
ple, the balance sheet and income statements
are supposed to tell us how strong organiza-
tions are. Today this view is being questioned
by a growing number of executives.
The significant factor that determines the
performance of an organization is its people.
They provide the knowledge, motivation, cre-
52 ORGWIZATIONAL DYNAMICS
ativity, and energy to do the job. This is even
more true today than in the past. Almost any
organization can buy the same equipment
and supplies. A technology breakthrough
provides only a temporary advantage. What
is developed today in France will be known
next week in Britain. What is developed today
in the United States will be exploited soon by
Japan. The only characteristic that is propri-
etary about technology is lead time, and that’s
a function of the individual’s ability to create
or exploit a technology for the purposes of the
organization.
What makes companies competitive to-
day-what will create and sustain their suc-
cess-are the talents and energy of people,
much more than the hard assets that appear
on the compa,ny’s balance sheets.
STARTING AFRESH
As the examples I have discussed emphasize,
I am proposing a major change in how cor-
porate America thinks about organizations.
We must focus more on individuals and how
we can unleash the potential of their contri-
butions. We need to focus more on individu-
al performance at all levels, on understand-
ing the elements of that performance, and on
what contributes to supporting and reward-
ing it. We have spent far more time and en-
ergy designing mechanical systems than we
have thinking about tools for effective indi-
vidual contributions. We need to encourage
teamwork, but we also need to think about
how to ensure the independence and initia-
tive of the individual who sparks change.
There is no doubt that we need to examine
organizational change, but the focus should
not be on how individuals resist change. In-
stead, the emphasis should be on identifying
the policies, procedures, and systems that
prevent change and on how we can make
them less resistant to individual initiative.
 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
For examples of broad-scale “transformation”
approaches, see Noel Tichy and Stratford
Sherman, Control Your Destiny or Someone Else
Will (New York Currency Doubleday, 1993);
Richard Pascale, Managing on the Edge (New
York: Simon & Schuster, 1991); and Tom Pe-
ters, Liberation Management (New York: Ran-
dom House, 1994).
Rosabeth Moss Kanter has several excel-
lent books that examine the individual’s role
in organization change. See The Change M.us-
ters (New York: Touchstone, 1983) and When
Giants Learn to Dance (New York Touchstone,
1989).
The perspective on the leader’s role in
leading change is best presented by John I’.
Kotter in A Force for Change (New York: The
Free Press, 1990). While he emphasizes broad-
er-scale change, his approach allows for
smaller, localized change as well.
For a passionate and somewhat one-sid-
ed discussion of what behaviors within the
traditional organization structure do get re-
warded, as compared to many of those that I
have discussed, read The Managerial Mystique
by Abraham Zaleznik (New York Harper &
Row, 1989).
For more on the concept of reengineer-
ing, as referenced in this article, see Michael
Hammer and James Champy, Reengineering
the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolu-
tion (New York Harper Business, 1993).
A superb discussion of the fact that in
most reengineering efforts there is too little
consideration of the policies, procedures,
physical, social and technical arrangements
that maximize an individual’s contribution to
reaching larger organizational goals can be
found in Duncan B. Sutherland, “Technology
and the White Collar Productivity Paradox:
Time, Tools & the Minds Best Work,” in
Knowledge Infrastructure Engineering: An
Emerging Community of Practice in Knowledge
Intensive Organizations, H. Parunals, ed. (Ann
Arbor: Industrial Technology Institute, 1992).
For more on how some executives are
questioning the mechanistic approach to im-
proving organizations, see “Your Company’s
Most Valuable Asset: Intellectual Capital,”
Fortune, October 3,1994, p. 68.
On the difference between entrepreneurs
and initiators, I have adopted David C. Mc-
Clelland’s views on the entrepreneur. See his
book, Power: The Inner Experience (New York
Irvington Press, 1975) for a more detailed dis-
cussion.
wlNlER1997 53