Death by Incrementalism

Incremental change is necessary for the slowly adapting human body. Cold turkey, while effective at times, is like a shock wave through your system. The bigger the change, the smaller, more incremental the implementation.

Incremental change is necessary for habitual change. If your exercise goal is to run a five-minute mile, it’s not a good idea to start with sprint training tomorrow when you’ve sat idle for two years. This is true in most cases when seeking ultimate changes in one’s habits. "Take it slow” is good advice.

Incremental change is necessary for institutional change, too. Institutional resistance to change aside, all the people and processes and policies can only handle so much change so fast. Slow is often better. The bigger the institution, the slower the change.

Incremental change, however, is unhelpful when it’s really risk aversion masquerading as a change strategy.

When growth or change is steady and slow but ultimately crowds out the willpower necessary for long-term goals and short-term needs, then incrementalism is a death sentence.

Is slow change a necessary, strategic, path toward renewal? Good.
Is slow change an excuse to not address the real issues, the urgent threat, or the pressing demands? Bad.

Incrementalism can be good.
It can also be a sign of delayed death.