Better than just different

New isn’t always good. Good isn’t always new. This insight from change management regarding organizational development shouldn’t deter us from trying something new. Rather, the message is this: Newness isn’t inherently beneficial in every case. The new should make something better, not just different. That is what every change that is meant to be successful is all about.

During the pandemic, we often had no choice but to try something new and different without knowing whether it was actually better. Working from home is the best example. Many of us went from zero to a hundred in just a few days. And almost all of us have realized in recent months that the best solution lies somewhere between zero and a hundred. Where and how exactly is often still unclear.

The guiding principle for any development of an organization’s new normal should be: What will XYZ improve? And what negative consequences, if any, must be accepted in return? Because change rarely has only advantages. Change, even for the better, can be painful, simply because it involves letting go of familiar processes or structures. 

Identify obstacles 

What is preventing us from finding and doing what is better? Before considering specific measures, this question should be clarified. The issue is usually the elephant in the room that no one mentions: our own concerns! The answer is: We ourselves are the biggest obstacle! And that’s why we can easily set those concerns aside. It’s entirely up to us.

This realization is sometimes not enough to embrace the better alternative. Then change management can step in: What happens if nothing happens? Endless “Corona mode,” a return to old patterns, or something in between? If nothing happens—meaning the new somehow establishes itself at some point—it’s guaranteed to be different, though perhaps only marginally better than the old. 

Leveraging influence

Reflecting on the obstacles has already shown just how great our own influence is. This influence is now used to bring about the new—something that is better, not just different. The assessment of what is better should be measured by the impact of the new. 

One example is the—in the future, voluntary—use of video conferencing: The time-saving benefit is obvious to everyone. However, that is only the input level. The next level, the output—that is, the conference proceedings—can also be positive. That does not necessarily mean the result is better, either. 

Only the dimensions of outcome—that is, the behavior following the conference—and outflow—the results in subsequent work—show whether video conferences are better compared to a face-to-face meeting or even no meeting at all. That would also be a possibility. 

The better is the enemy of the good 

The example shows that the better option is not always obvious. And it is worth giving it more thought rather than trusting first impressions. These can be misleading if only spontaneous effects are considered. Questioning whether a new solution is truly better becomes increasingly difficult later on, once new methods and patterns have become established. Changing something again is usually even harder.

The principle of “better than just different” is fundamental in ensuring that the New Normal in an organization truly creates benefits for everyone involved.