Radical Change
Rapid Change and Radical Change: speed is no substitute for direction
Making decisions faster can matter. But it does not answer whether we are making the right decisions or whom our actions serve. An organisation can function economically and handle many tasks while still missing the purpose for which people lead it.
I am therefore interested not only in a company's ability to adapt, but also in its direction: why do we run it, what responsibilities do we accept, and how does that commitment become visible in everyday work?
In my publication Radical Change: Why we lead companies, I connect this question with many years of personal observations in business, private life and church settings, including international contexts. The personal perspective comes first. A knowledge-based foundation explains concepts, literature and limitations. This article focuses on the connection with organisational capabilities and technology.
What I mean by Radical Change
I use Radical Change to describe a fundamental reorientation of company leadership towards responsible business that is actually put into practice. In my view, the wellbeing of those affected and responsibility for economic viability belong together.
This is a personal, ethically defined use of the term. It is not a scientifically validated standard model or a guarantee of economic success. An organisation can also change fundamentally in a harmful direction. The depth of a change and whether it is responsible must therefore be assessed separately.
Here, radical means examining fundamental assumptions about leadership. It does not mean restructuring as harshly, quickly or extensively as possible. A more limited offering, an orderly transition or deliberately less growth may be responsible outcomes of that reflection. Equally, an already viable practice may be preserved without calling it Radical Change.
Rapid Change and SRC are not the same
In ordinary usage, Rapid Change draws attention to fast change and pressure to adapt. This does not itself diagnose an organisation's condition.
The concept of Situations of Rapid Change, or SRC, is narrower. The definition published by Leverage Experts and attributed to Kolja A. Rafferty describes situations in which the dynamics of transformation exceed the organisation's capacity to adapt while its economic position deteriorates. The general expression for speed and this specific concept should not be used interchangeably.
SRC is not a necessary preliminary stage of Radical Change. An economically stable company can fundamentally reconsider its leadership. Conversely, an overloaded company may first need relief, expertise or clear decision rights without having to reorder every conviction.
Clarify before applying a label
Six questions can support a conversation about your own situation:
- What should our company exist for, and for whom should things improve?
- What already works well enough that it should be preserved?
- Which decisions or services are not delivered reliably?
- Are capabilities, time, information or clear authority missing?
- Which assumption about success, control or responsibility guides our actions?
- How would those affected recognise an actual improvement?
These questions are a conversation aid, not a validated self-test. A certain number of unclear answers cannot establish SRC or the need for Radical Change. The answer may be a limited improvement, a fundamental reorientation or a reasoned decision to retain a proven practice.
Capabilities still matter, but a tool does not supply the purpose
A company needs capabilities to fulfil its chosen purpose. People and teams contribute knowledge, experience and judgement. Software and automation can support particular tasks. The appropriate combination depends on the task, available resources and responsibility for the consequences.
Viewing a company as a system of capabilities is useful for this purpose. It is not a complete description of an organisation. People are more than providers of a required service, and an efficiently achieved goal can still be an inappropriate goal.
The question is therefore not only: what must we be able to do in future? It is also: why do we need this capability, whom does it serve, and what consequences are we accepting?
Consider a constructed example. A managing director personally approves every important customer decision. New software might speed up approvals. But the real blockage may be her conviction that responsibility requires personal control of every decision. Examining that assumption might allow qualified employees to decide for themselves within clear boundaries. Whether this is appropriate depends, among other things, on competence, risks and feedback. The example is not a general recommendation to abolish control.
Distinguish insight, decision and actual practice
A different conviction does not yet make a different organisation. The managing director may understand something differently, announce a decision, actually transfer authority and maintain the new practice when a mistake occurs. These are connected but distinct steps.
Whether the new practice produces better results is another question. Customers might receive a more reliable service. But risks might also be overlooked or employees overloaded. Good intentions replace neither the ability to act nor an examination of the consequences.
Change management does not become redundant. Supporting the people affected can assist a limited adjustment as well as a fundamental change. It is not a lower stage superseded by Radical Change.
Technology as a limited application
With artificial intelligence too, the required service should be clarified before choosing a tool. Bringing information together, preparing a draft and carrying responsibility for a consequential decision are different tasks.
An AI system can provide support within a suitably designed workflow. Its suitability must be assessed for the specific task. Accountability, oversight, opportunities for correction and responsible consequences remain leadership issues. Not every change needs AI, and not every automation constitutes fundamental reorientation.
In my work I also use QUENARIS as a digital work and organisational system. This is one possible tool connection, not a prerequisite for the essay or proof of its validity. The choice of a customer solution is agreed separately. It does not replace my professional responsibility or the customer's decisions. My previously disclosed work at Mattli Digital remains a separate professional connection, not a shared statement of worldview endorsing the essay.
SALTER, developed by David Fiorucci, remains an independent external orientation framework. Radical Change is neither its implementation nor a joint product with SALTER or Leverage Experts. The approaches discussed here are not assembled into a supposedly scientifically confirmed sequence of stages.
A responsible next step
For a specific situation, I would first clarify purpose, pressures and existing strengths. Missing prerequisites can then be distinguished from unexamined leadership assumptions. Those responsible can weigh options, agree on a limited step and observe its consequences.
This does not create an eight-step process that is identical for every situation. Urgent safety or liquidity issues may require immediate action. A new leadership practice may need a longer period of discussion and testing. Sequence and scope must fit the task.
What matters is not as much change as possible. What matters is a responsible direction that becomes visible in actual conduct and remains open to correction.
Frequently asked questions
Is Radical Change a scientifically proven method?
No. Here the term describes my personal, ethically defined perspective on fundamental reorientation that is put into practice. The publication connects it with research and makes its limitations explicit. The overall model has not been empirically validated.
How does it differ from SRC?
In the definition used here, SRC describes a specific critical state of strain. Radical Change in this essay asks about the direction and lived responsibility of leadership. The two can overlap, but they are neither identical nor successive stages of maturity.
Does Radical Change replace change management?
No. Change management can support people through different types of change. It remains a supporting discipline. The essay additionally asks about a responsible purpose and the assumptions guiding action.
Does every company need fundamental reorientation?
No. A lack of expertise, unclear responsibility or an unsuitable process may call for limited corrections. Deliberately preserving a viable practice is also a reasoned outcome.
Are AI or QUENARIS prerequisites?
No. Tools are chosen for the specific task. They define neither the company's purpose nor the author's ethical position, and they do not replace human responsibility.
Where can I find the full argument?
The publication Radical Change: Why we lead companies contains a self-contained essay, eleven chapters of further discussion, practical questions, literature, evidence limitations and a glossary. It distinguishes personal experience, value judgements, reasoned interpretations and scientific findings.