Initiating change from the management suite

I read an interesting article in the Washington Post today - an editorial from Andy Grove that admonishes the Obama administration for taking on too many big initiatives at once.  Grove states that a management team should move through change in two stages:

first, a period of chaotic experimentation in which intense discussion is allowed, even encouraged, by those in charge. In time, when the chaos becomes unbearable, the leadership reins in chaos with a firm hand. The first phase serves to expose the needs and options, the potential and pitfalls. The organization and its leaders learn a lot going through this phase. But frustration also builds, and eventually the cry is heard: Make a decision -- any decision -- but make it now. The time comes for the leadership to end the chaos and commit to a path.

In some very innovative and "paranoid" organizations, this is how change happens.  Management requires, no demands, a big change, and a bunch of people run around with their hair on fire to find answers or discover new opportunities.  These competing interests collide and some are eventually discarded, then the management team decides it is time to make a decision.  It quickly and clearly delineates what's important, what it's goals are and then makes a decision.

For the rest of you, I recognize that Grove's assertion and my followup read more like a fairy tale than what actually happens.  In most large organizations, what actually happens is that everyone can see change is necessary, but so many people are busy defending their products or turf that little organized change can happen.  While the management team wants change, it is too worried about upsetting the existing order that it can't initiate change.  Additionally, the management team recognizes that requesting change would mean setting clear goals and expectations.  Given the recent news about how removed many CEOs and executive teams are from how their businesses actually work, it should come as no surprise that few of them want to upset the apple cart and provide clear strategic direction.  So rather than a bunch of folks working feverishly on a wide range of ideas, usually no one works on any new ideas even though everyone can see that change is necessary.  A corporate myopia exists, willing the team to ignore the elephant in the room.  Then, everyone pretends to be surprised when the disruption happens.  "Never saw that coming" - a senior executive who says this doesn't know his or her business.

In non-Grovian businesses, everybody knows there's a problem, but the executive team doesn't have the fortitude to request new ideas.  Even when that does happen on ocassion, the team provides few resources and a very limited scope to a small team who are tightly constrained.  In addition, everyone in the organization is hungry for clear strategic direction and focus, but many have written off the possibility long ago.

Grove's postulation is correct, however, his image of how businesses work is influenced by his management style and experience, which I'd have to say do not reflect many Fortune 500 organizations.