I recently wrote, in a rather tongue-in-cheek way, to the scrumdevelopment online community about "Catastrophic Organizational Change", a term coined by Michael Ivey. It sparked off a few responses that, to my surprise, had a somewhat reactionary flavor to them. Strange thing. Made me think there was more to the phrase than I first understood, and it got me thinking. Why is the concept of catastrophic change so terrifying? Do people just want "nice change"? I wonder what that is... I noticed that the focus in the said responses was on the word 'catastrophe' and its unpalatable marriage to the word 'organization'; the word 'change' was all but ignored. I find that interesting; it indicates a fear-driven reaction, rather than a considered one.

What follows here are some loosely connected, and sometimes contradictory thoughts on this subject...

There is something important to be explored in the term "Catastrophic Organizational Change". It is an interesting and rich term, one with a powerful, anarchic edge, but at the same time tinged with compassion. New paradigms need new language, so I am not put off by those who say the meaning of catastrophe is too negative. Scrum meant "a disordered or confused situation involving a number of people." until Jeff Sutherland coined the phrase for a software development process. Language can change to meet the need of the speakers, to meet the need of the cause. It is adaptive. Thank God!

"Catastrophic Organizational Change" is a new phrase - but it is not a new concept. Catastrophic change comes about when people discover their own truth, by pushing their own, and others' comfort zones to the limit, by taking risks, embracing failure and walking through fear. That's real change; that's breakthrough. I don't believe placing a methodology like Scrum or XP, or any of the other brand-name Agile methodologies onto a broken organization really, truly solves anything. It is yet another band aid. A better one than most, no doubt about that, but a wide chasm still exists between this cure for the presenting problem and the sickness that still lingers below the surface - and feeds.

I think Jon Spence's comment at the 2005 Scrum, Gathering, "Success is our enemy" was very poignant. It is the small, short-term successes that are so dangerous - those that make us believe we are making real progress, when in fact we are only putting a new coat of paint over a crumbling facade. Non-sustainable. Can Scrum, in and of itself, be successful? I doubt it. Well, define "success". Come to that, define "Scrum"!

Writing great software and delivering high customer value on time, is a noble goal, for sure, but self-actualization, artistry... that's where I want to go. How does this Agile paradigm shift fit into... well, everything? How can we shift the balance of power, not just from one person/group to another, but shift in the sense of redistribution? How can we completely undermine the status quo and introduce new ways of doing things that none of us have even thought of yet? Can we? Should we? Big questions, but surely worth asking from time to time.

There are many top-down, and heavy-handed approaches to organizational change that will result in catastrophe. But they will not result in meaningful change, and that is the point that the critics of Catastrophic Organizational Change seem to be missing. The focus is on change - deep change, real change; the focus is not on catastrophe. Catastrophe is the journey, not the destination. The weapons of catastrophic change are not sledge hammers and bulldozers, rather they are craftsman's tools, delicate and accurate, operated with patience and love.

Fundamental change does not happen from top-down, I firmly believe that; there is too much at stake for the players: too much to lose when things don't go as planned. Change happens from within (ask any psychotherapist) and in the context of an organization, that means bottom-up. Forget getting executive advocates; get junior programmer advocates, get admin assistants, get those with no power. Seed the lowest level of the organization with agents of passion; educate them, nurture them, make knowledge available, have conversations, share stories, laugh, agitate and ask difficult questions. Be unafraid. Change will be much slower, but it will be real and yes, it will be catastrophic.

The 1904 San Francisco earthquake did not happen overnight. It took years of tiny, subtle shifts in the underlying rock strata before the foundations of the city just collapsed. Likewise, the French Revolution did not just occur out of the blue one day; small groups of people were changing their own hearts and minds, and those of others around them, until the force grew so big it finally exploded. Catastrophic Change. Termites eat buildings from the inside. The destruction remains invisible until it is too late to do anything about it. Catastrophic Change. New beginnings.

Catastrophic change starts with the individual (or more specifically, the individual in the context of his group, and within the organization, and within the larger society in which he exists). I don't know exactly what the focus needs to be to initiate that change, but I plan to explore the possibilities - and learn. One thing I do know: it needs to reach beyond the world of software and into the world of Art.

Today, among other activities, I have a part-time consulting contract with a software product company in Silicon valley, where the focus is on introducing Scrum and IID. No talk of catastrophe, I just show up and do the next right thing. But even with the small goals, it is important for me to be genuine, and speak my truth. Agile is not a set of practices, it is a way of being. I firmly believe that, and I trust it.

05 December 2005