Large goals broken into concrete, winnable steps, each visible when it lands, let every result recruit new allies and make the next step easier to approve.
An example
With an activist investor building a stake, the chief executive of a publicly traded packaging maker announced a plan to cut costs by a hundred million dollars over three years. The head of shared services was asked to consolidate finance, payroll, and purchasing from nine business units, and the units had fought every previous attempt. She broke the work into steps small enough to finish in a quarter each, starting with travel expenses, which nobody defended. The first step saved four million dollars and was reported to the board. The second, accounts payable for three willing units, saved six million. Each result went into the quarterly report, and after each step another holdout unit asked to join. By the time she proposed consolidating payroll, the most contested piece, seven of the nine unit heads supported it. The activist cited the savings in its next letter to shareholders.
Why it works
Large goals invite large opposition, because everyone can see what they stand to lose. Breaking the goal into concrete steps that can be won one at a time makes each step easier to approve, and each visible result makes the next look better: it shows the approach works and recruits people who want to be associated with success. It depends on steps that can be finished and seen, on starting where resistance is weakest, and on honest reporting of results. It fails if the steps are too small to matter or the early results are overstated.
The thinking behind it
Karl E. Weick Weick's Small Wins: Redefining the Scale of Social Problems (1984) argues that framing a problem on a massive scale prevents action, and defines a small win as "a concrete, complete, implemented outcome of moderate importance." One may seem unimportant, but a series reveals a pattern that may attract allies, deter opponents, and lower resistance to later proposals. Travel expenses, then payables, then payroll is such a series.
John P. Kotter Kotter's Leading Change (1996) sets out an eight-stage process for major change, one stage of which is generating visible short-term wins that sustain commitment to the effort. The stages are a practitioner model drawn from his experience with change efforts. Reporting each consolidation step to the board made the wins visible to the people whose commitment the program needed.
When it fits
Large changes that face broad resistance and long programs that need sustained support are where it fits, for sponsors who can control the order of the work. The steps must be ones that can be completed and measured in a short time, and a forum where the results will be seen.
How to use it well
Break the goal into steps that can be finished and measured in weeks or a quarter. Start where resistance is weakest and results will be clear.
- Report each result as it lands, in the forums the deciders read.
- Invite units or people who held back to join the next step.
- Use each result to make the case for the one after it.
- Save the most contested steps until the record is strong.
Keep the steps real, and report them at their true size. Each must matter on its own, so the sequence is credible even if it stops partway.
What it costs and where it backfires
Small steps take longer than one large change, and the delay can let opposition organize. If the early steps are too easy, the record convinces nobody. The most contested step may still fail after a string of wins. Results have to be reported at their true size. Overstating early wins to build momentum creates a record that collapses the first time someone checks it.
When it is used on you
Check each result's real size when a rival builds a string of small wins toward a goal you oppose, and judge the next step on its own merits. If you have a real objection to the contested step, make it before the record gets longer.