Built to Last
David L. Bevett, BS, MPH
February 29, 2002
It was Friday late afternoon, and I had just arrived back in California. Just days before, I decided that
I would move back to Hawaii for a time. I was looking for a nice used Honda to ship back to help
recapture some of the freedom lost the previous year. As I drove, I placed a call to a friend. The
conversation ended as I pulled into the lot. The conversation changed the direction of my life: he
suggested that I should write about my professional experiences because I had something valuable to
share. In that moment I finally listened to the counsel I had given others: the world is like clay and
almost anything is possible, yet it is up to each person to envision and create from it what one
believes. And so I craft a story about learning, the reorganization of self, about finding freedom and
liberation by accepting that circumstances will and do change, but in trusting in one’s core beliefs it
is possible to survive life’s storms, indeed that I am “Built to Last.” One might question the
relationship between personal transformation and Collins and Porras (1997) “Built to Last, Successful
Habits of Visionary Companies.” Yet, if one considers that “Organizations are social phenomena.”
And that “Any particular form of ‘practical’ advice about planning and managing change must be
based upon some idea about the nature of human psychology and personality” (Collins, 1998, p.4).
Then one can argue that the study of organizational change is parallel to the study of personal change,
and that the “Successful Habits of Visionary Companies” are equivalent to successful habits for
visionary people. Further, as stated by Morgan (1997), we should “think about organizations as if
they were organisms.” And begin “thinking about them as living systems...” (p.33). Hence, a story of
personal transformation may provide meaningful insight into organizational transformation.
An individual can be anchored by strong principles, but inflexible thinking and attitudes can leave one
unable to adapt, evolve and succeed. Likewise, according to Collins and Porras (1997), “A company
can have the world’s most deeply cherished and meaningful core ideology, but if it just sits still or
refuses to change, the world will pass it by.” There can be great danger in growing overly dependent
and confident in classical logic and analysis. Indeed, to suffer from “analysis paralysis” is to fall prey
to the illusion that a gray and fluid world can actually be defined in black and white. As a consultant,
I relied on analytical tools and methodologies to evaluate organizations and their operating
environments. Intuitive methods were not viewed to be as objective or valuable. And the status,
autonomy, and compensation afforded my position reinforced my commitment to refining and
expanding my skill set and confidence: scientific analysis became part of my core ideology. The
scientific method can produce elegant solutions to complex problems, unless the problems are
continuously changing. When left-brain thinking dominates, it becomes difficult to comprehend
nonlinear patterns, and unstructured and irrational phenomena, resulting in rigid thinking that blocks
the inflow of new information. Thus, “Learning organizations have to develop skills and mind-sets
that embrace environmental change as a norm. They have to be able to detect ‘early warning’ signals
that give clues to shifting trends and patterns” (Morgan, 1997, p. 90). So do learning people. And
though my scientific analysis was generally effective in problem solving, I often became tied to a
particular methodology. Problems in a state of flux became moving targets that were increasingly
difficult to keep within scope. Therefore, I had to re-learn to be more flexible, open-minded and
adaptable. I had to accept that change was a constant not a variable.
Becoming overly dependent on analysis allowed analysis to become more than a tool or way of
seeing, it evolved into a dogma that at times resulted in inflexibility. Therefore, when chaos entered
the equation, I was unable to respond in an optimal way. Eventually, I had to subject analysis itself to
a slow and critical evaluation to identify its limitations and weaknesses, and allow space for intuition
and discovery to re-enter my thinking. To strive, learn and accept that “When analytic thought, the
knife, is applied to experience, something is always killed in the process.” And “Classical
understanding is concerned with the piles and the basis for sorting and interrelating them. Romantic
understanding is directed toward the handful of sand before the sorting begins. Both are valid ways
of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other” (Pirsig, 1974, p.70). Through this
process, I realized that analysis was not my core ideology but rather a learned strategy. The ringing
clarity of perceiving that I needed to reexamine my philosophy of life and reality hit hard and deeply.
“He studied scientific truths, then became upset even more by the apparent cause of their temporal
condition. It looked as though the time spans of scientific truths are an inverse function of the
intensity of scientific effort,” (Pirsig, 1974, p.70). Bang! In time, I understood and accepted that
finding my center and allowing all else to float away was my path to change. Several years prior to
this realization, I created my vision statement, yet “…A visionary company carefully preserves and
protects its core ideology, yet all the specific manifestations of its core ideology must be open for
change and evolution” (Collins & Porras, 1997, p.81). Likewise, I needed to redefine my core
philosophy and become more open to evolution and change. Thus, accepting that with hard work and
time I could make the necessary changes, I set out on the path towards the reorganization of self.
The first steps on the path were difficult: suspending one’s beliefs about how things should be to
allow for the deep evaluation of one’s philosophy is exhausting. Moreover, after uncovering core
ideologies one must then try to resolve the potentially paradoxical nature of the beliefs. Hence, to
reconcile my philosophy about humanity and to succeed in business means that I must somehow
attain an ideological balance between the philosophies of Bill Gates and the Dalai Lama. However
nonsensical this may appear, it is what Collins and Porras are advancing. Does creating a business to
achieve this balance meet the criteria for a BHAG (Big, Hairy, Audacious, Goal)? Will it “…get people
going?” Or “…get people’s juices flowing” (Collins and Porras, 1997, p. 95)? The reality is staying
true to my core ideology in a competition-driven, free-market based, capitalistic business world
requires that I find a balance between Gates and the Dalai Lama. Because my desire to succeed and ”
… drive for progress arises from a deep human urge—to explore, to create, to discover, to achieve,
to change, to improve” (Collins and Porras, 1997, p. 82). In essence, to learn, apply and manage
knowledge. And “Knowledge management is not about turning knowledge workers into
interchangeable components …” Rather, “Its essence involves fueling what knowledge workers do
best—what Microsoft CEO Bill Gates refers to as ‘thinking work’” (Microsoft, 1999, p.3). Yet,
“…the greater our temporal achievements, the more vulnerable we become to pride and arrogance”
(Dalai Lama, 1999, p.115). Thus, success, happiness, freedom and liberation equates to establishing
an ideological balance between achievement and humility. Indeed, I must hold fast to “Preserve the
core and stimulate progress,” trusting that my core philosophy will center me during life’s storms,
finding strength in the understanding that I am “Built to Last” (Collins and Porras, 1997, p. 82).
References
Collins, J., & Porras, J. (1997). Built To Last. New York: Harper Collins Publishers Inc.
Lama, D. (1999). Ethics for the New Millennium. New York: The Berkley
Publishing Group, A division of Penguin Putnam Inc.
Microsoft, (1999). Practicing Knowledge Management. Retrieved December 5, 2001
from http://www.microsoft.com/dns
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pirsig, R. (1974). Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. New York:
William Morrow and Company, Inc.
David L. Bevett, BS, MPH
February 29, 2002
It was Friday late afternoon, and I had just arrived back in California. Just days before, I decided that
I would move back to Hawaii for a time. I was looking for a nice used Honda to ship back to help
recapture some of the freedom lost the previous year. As I drove, I placed a call to a friend. The
conversation ended as I pulled into the lot. The conversation changed the direction of my life: he
suggested that I should write about my professional experiences because I had something valuable to
share. In that moment I finally listened to the counsel I had given others: the world is like clay and
almost anything is possible, yet it is up to each person to envision and create from it what one
believes. And so I craft a story about learning, the reorganization of self, about finding freedom and
liberation by accepting that circumstances will and do change, but in trusting in one’s core beliefs it
is possible to survive life’s storms, indeed that I am “Built to Last.” One might question the
relationship between personal transformation and Collins and Porras (1997) “Built to Last, Successful
Habits of Visionary Companies.” Yet, if one considers that “Organizations are social phenomena.”
And that “Any particular form of ‘practical’ advice about planning and managing change must be
based upon some idea about the nature of human psychology and personality” (Collins, 1998, p.4).
Then one can argue that the study of organizational change is parallel to the study of personal change,
and that the “Successful Habits of Visionary Companies” are equivalent to successful habits for
visionary people. Further, as stated by Morgan (1997), we should “think about organizations as if
they were organisms.” And begin “thinking about them as living systems...” (p.33). Hence, a story of
personal transformation may provide meaningful insight into organizational transformation.
An individual can be anchored by strong principles, but inflexible thinking and attitudes can leave one
unable to adapt, evolve and succeed. Likewise, according to Collins and Porras (1997), “A company
can have the world’s most deeply cherished and meaningful core ideology, but if it just sits still or
refuses to change, the world will pass it by.” There can be great danger in growing overly dependent
and confident in classical logic and analysis. Indeed, to suffer from “analysis paralysis” is to fall prey
to the illusion that a gray and fluid world can actually be defined in black and white. As a consultant,
I relied on analytical tools and methodologies to evaluate organizations and their operating
environments. Intuitive methods were not viewed to be as objective or valuable. And the status,
autonomy, and compensation afforded my position reinforced my commitment to refining and
expanding my skill set and confidence: scientific analysis became part of my core ideology. The
scientific method can produce elegant solutions to complex problems, unless the problems are
continuously changing. When left-brain thinking dominates, it becomes difficult to comprehend
nonlinear patterns, and unstructured and irrational phenomena, resulting in rigid thinking that blocks
the inflow of new information. Thus, “Learning organizations have to develop skills and mind-sets
that embrace environmental change as a norm. They have to be able to detect ‘early warning’ signals
that give clues to shifting trends and patterns” (Morgan, 1997, p. 90). So do learning people. And
though my scientific analysis was generally effective in problem solving, I often became tied to a
particular methodology. Problems in a state of flux became moving targets that were increasingly
difficult to keep within scope. Therefore, I had to re-learn to be more flexible, open-minded and
adaptable. I had to accept that change was a constant not a variable.
Becoming overly dependent on analysis allowed analysis to become more than a tool or way of
seeing, it evolved into a dogma that at times resulted in inflexibility. Therefore, when chaos entered
the equation, I was unable to respond in an optimal way. Eventually, I had to subject analysis itself to
a slow and critical evaluation to identify its limitations and weaknesses, and allow space for intuition
and discovery to re-enter my thinking. To strive, learn and accept that “When analytic thought, the
knife, is applied to experience, something is always killed in the process.” And “Classical
understanding is concerned with the piles and the basis for sorting and interrelating them. Romantic
understanding is directed toward the handful of sand before the sorting begins. Both are valid ways
of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other” (Pirsig, 1974, p.70). Through this
process, I realized that analysis was not my core ideology but rather a learned strategy. The ringing
clarity of perceiving that I needed to reexamine my philosophy of life and reality hit hard and deeply.
“He studied scientific truths, then became upset even more by the apparent cause of their temporal
condition. It looked as though the time spans of scientific truths are an inverse function of the
intensity of scientific effort,” (Pirsig, 1974, p.70). Bang! In time, I understood and accepted that
finding my center and allowing all else to float away was my path to change. Several years prior to
this realization, I created my vision statement, yet “…A visionary company carefully preserves and
protects its core ideology, yet all the specific manifestations of its core ideology must be open for
change and evolution” (Collins & Porras, 1997, p.81). Likewise, I needed to redefine my core
philosophy and become more open to evolution and change. Thus, accepting that with hard work and
time I could make the necessary changes, I set out on the path towards the reorganization of self.
The first steps on the path were difficult: suspending one’s beliefs about how things should be to
allow for the deep evaluation of one’s philosophy is exhausting. Moreover, after uncovering core
ideologies one must then try to resolve the potentially paradoxical nature of the beliefs. Hence, to
reconcile my philosophy about humanity and to succeed in business means that I must somehow
attain an ideological balance between the philosophies of Bill Gates and the Dalai Lama. However
nonsensical this may appear, it is what Collins and Porras are advancing. Does creating a business to
achieve this balance meet the criteria for a BHAG (Big, Hairy, Audacious, Goal)? Will it “…get people
going?” Or “…get people’s juices flowing” (Collins and Porras, 1997, p. 95)? The reality is staying
true to my core ideology in a competition-driven, free-market based, capitalistic business world
requires that I find a balance between Gates and the Dalai Lama. Because my desire to succeed and ”
… drive for progress arises from a deep human urge—to explore, to create, to discover, to achieve,
to change, to improve” (Collins and Porras, 1997, p. 82). In essence, to learn, apply and manage
knowledge. And “Knowledge management is not about turning knowledge workers into
interchangeable components …” Rather, “Its essence involves fueling what knowledge workers do
best—what Microsoft CEO Bill Gates refers to as ‘thinking work’” (Microsoft, 1999, p.3). Yet,
“…the greater our temporal achievements, the more vulnerable we become to pride and arrogance”
(Dalai Lama, 1999, p.115). Thus, success, happiness, freedom and liberation equates to establishing
an ideological balance between achievement and humility. Indeed, I must hold fast to “Preserve the
core and stimulate progress,” trusting that my core philosophy will center me during life’s storms,
finding strength in the understanding that I am “Built to Last” (Collins and Porras, 1997, p. 82).
References
Collins, J., & Porras, J. (1997). Built To Last. New York: Harper Collins Publishers Inc.
Lama, D. (1999). Ethics for the New Millennium. New York: The Berkley
Publishing Group, A division of Penguin Putnam Inc.
Microsoft, (1999). Practicing Knowledge Management. Retrieved December 5, 2001
from http://www.microsoft.com/dns
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pirsig, R. (1974). Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. New York:
William Morrow and Company, Inc.
| Copyright © Knowledgeark.net, 2016 |
| Terms and Conditions |
Knowledgeark.net > Leadership Development > Built to Last
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |