Change - Inevitability, Result, Purpose

Things happen to change or more precisely people tend to change things. Lets take only the social side of things, for simplicity and concentrate on these items: organizational structures, politics and product development. Change happens usually, because something is wrong, bad, not as supposed to be. Then people change things - put/move right people to right places, subordinate this to that and fire some. Same thing in politics - things are always less than ideal it always gets better with some change. I am not talking of the institutionalized 'change' brand - just only about the description of the results. Are things really so bad or in need of change in all these three areas so that this amount of change is inevitably needed that we see these days? Organizations - for the critical observers there obviously are wrongdoings and excess trembling in changing the orgcharts, in politics - preaching change is the only way to increase (or not to loose) your poll share, in product development - the only way how to keep people buying is to add that watermelon flavour to your chewing gum and that extra n-th blade to you shaving gear + turbo + laser guidance. Suppose, from the objective point of view, no change is needed. What happens? You can be sure, some will start to talk about 'nothing happening', usually the same ones who whined about 'too much change'. Politics - a less controllable environment - it is is not possible there. Whenever the big guys cool down on change, some newcomer finds a way to change-talks. In product development/marketing it may be fatal. No change, probably means going out of business. So, it does not matter, if you need much change or little or is the need for it big or of a lesser kind - looking back - the result is some sort of change. Thinking of the passion before and during the change - what a big work it was to engineer it and what a minor move in the long term perspective. If you have a defined reason for change, it often binds you to a problem to solve and that may constrain your creativity. Take a third point of view - without knowing about the details of the objective need for change would there be any difference between the two options: a) real need for change and a change b) a faked change to keep things bubbling, but reasonable This leads to a new paradigm of change: a) whatever it takes, you have to introduce some change b) the result of a change should not be stupid, but also not overly beneficial c) predictable change is not change, 'much' change is radical and overall not positive, what you need is 'different' and not too much different. And of course - with small incremental changes, you can teach a giraffe to fly d) the setting of a problem as 'change without no rational reason' leads you to the undiscovered jungle of creativity, the vanguard solutions may actually show you problems that you have not discovered yet or give you a pro-active edge for future problems. Change is a bad solution to problems. Change for the sake of change is bad. Change for the fun of change is good change.