Carried out as a sequence of smaller steps, each sound on its own, a large change lets the organization adapt as it goes without ever facing one fight over the whole.
Borderline: whether this move is justified depends on the situation, and only the person in it can judge.
An example
Store-by-store purchasing left a regional pharmacy chain's 120 stores with five different suppliers for the same items, and its chief operating officer wanted to end it. A single proposal had been rejected twice by the regional directors. So she broke it into steps, each with its own case. First came one shared inventory system, justified by an audit finding. Six months later, central purchasing for over-the-counter medicines, where the savings were easiest to prove. Then a common supplier list for health and beauty, then shared promotional budgets. Each step produced numbers she published to the regional directors, and two of them asked to join early. When a director asked at a leadership offsite where this ended, she drew the full picture on a whiteboard. Two years in, 80 percent of purchasing was central and gross margin was up two points.
Why it works
Breaking the change into steps makes each one look easier to accept, because no single step is big enough to trigger an organized response or a full review. Opposing any one step looks costlier, since the resister seems obstructive over something small while everyone else moves along. Over a long sequence, the colleagues who would have backed resistance often move on. What it needs is control over the sequence and pace, an organization large enough that no step affects a critical mass at once, and a time horizon longer than the patience of the opposition.
The thinking behind it
Thomas C. Schelling Schelling's Arms and Influence (1966) describes salami tactics: a line can be crossed in slices, each too small to justify a response. Each purchasing step is a slice the regional directors would not fight on its own. The clean form uses the same arithmetic in the open, with every slice justified by its own results and the whole shown to anyone who asks.
Robert B. Cialdini Cialdini's Influence (1984) describes commitment and consistency: once people take a position they feel pressure to act in line with it, so small early commitments make larger later ones easier to obtain. Directors who accepted the shared inventory system and saw its results have taken a position the next step extends, which is why sequencing works better than one large proposal.
Mark Granovetter Granovetter's Threshold Models of Collective Behavior (1978) holds that each person joins an action once enough others have acted, so who goes first shapes the outcome. Two regional directors who ask to join early lower the threshold for the rest. Recruiting early adopters from the most affected groups is a direct use of the model.
When it fits
Large changes that would lose as a single proposal are the territory, where each step can be justified on its own evidence and the destination is one you will defend when asked. You need control of the sequence and pace, usually through a senior role or a transformation mandate, and the patience to run it over a year or more.
How to use it well
Design each step to earn its place. A step that only makes sense as part of the endgame is the weak link, and someone will find it. The sequence lowers the cost of each decision. It does not need secrecy to work, and it works better without it.
- Start with the step whose benefits are easiest to prove, and publish the results.
- Space the steps so each one beds in before the next.
- Recruit early adopters from the most affected groups, because volunteers make the next step easier.
- Answer honestly when someone asks where this ends, and show the full picture.
What it costs and where it backfires
Progress is slow, and a change of leadership can stop it halfway, leaving the company in an incoherent middle state. When people work out the destination for themselves, they may feel managed and fight the remaining steps harder. Denying the destination to someone who asks, or briefing each step in narrow terms so the pattern stays hidden, turns sequencing into deception.
When it is used on you
Faced with a current state that differs sharply from last year's baseline, though no single step was contested, compare the present with the original and lay out every change in order. Ask for the cumulative plan before agreeing to the next step, and bring in someone with continuity, such as the board or a long-tenured officer, to track the whole.