This morning’s FT has identified something that it is calling “the dullness dividend”. The theory being that after the recent market turmoil there is a payback from calmness, consistency and not frightening the sheep.  Whether that works in today’s politics for more than a month or two remains to be seen.  I’ve been drawing some parallels lately between the political life and business life and the flight to dullness sparks some interesting questions as to why we are so addicted to change.

At Defy Expectations we believe that Transformational Leadership is one of the key skills of effective business (and political) management and we still believe that. But only if it is combined with the other five skills (Productivity, Openness, Well-Being, Customer Focus and especially Risk Management).  That means that any transformation has to be managed with great care and an understanding that change takes time.  No change happens overnight but we have reached a point where if a new leader is not “driving change” then their tenure will be short.  Lose six matches in a row and you’ll be looking for a new job. 

We have lost the understanding of how change happens.   Change is indeed accelerating, driven by technology, geopolitics, and the globalisation of trade, but to reap the benefits of change takes time and careful management, and that is time we are very reluctant to give. Change is exciting, change is a drug and the only way we satisfy the craving is by more and more change. But by piling change on change we deliver chaos and exhaustion.  We need to give change the time to work.  Welcome the dullness dividend.

We’ve all stood on podiums and talked about change – how it is a way of life for us all, that nothing will stay the same, that if you can’t stand the heat then you need to get out of the kitchen.  Some of this is true. There are plenty of gurus and management consultants who will run courses for you on how to get happy with change and plenty more who will tell you that leadership is all about change.  One of the most stupid questions asked of new leaders is “what are you going to do in your first 100 days?”  Unless the company is on the brink of bankruptcy the only sensible answer to that question is “Listen, learn and think”.  But shareholders are expecting change because change is good, and change is addictive.  The new leader is pushed into making changes that may be completely inappropriate and often dangerous.

But has this gone too far too fast?  Can humans deal with this level and speed of change.  We only manage to get through our day because most things change slowly. We generally wake in the same country/bed that we went to sleep in.  Our morning routines remain the same.  We like routine, it gives structure to our lives. For our brains to be able to deal with change we need a lot of things to not change.  And that is because, whether you believe you like change or not, change produces stress, and stress produces fear, and fear produces behaviour that is often unhelpful.

There is a wonderful prayer attributed to Sir Francis Drake, who led a life that was full of change, who when faced with a “great endeavour” wrote “grant us also to know that it is not the beginning, but the continuing of the same unto the end, until it be thoroughly finished, which yieldeth the true glory.

Keep going until it’s finally done – even at the risk of being accused of dullness.