By Mike Myatt, Chief StrategyOfficer, N2growth "Leading Change" is clearly more difficultthan arriving at the realization that change is needed...Ifyou want to validate the prior statement reflect back on all of the"change agents" that have crossed your path over the years and askyourself the following question: How many of them have trulysucceeded. While we've heard a lot about change of late as itrelates to our current political landscape, the power of realchange is trivialized when it becomes little more than apolitical sound-bite. Change...it can either be your best friend oryour worst nightmare. Change got President Obama elected, and itmay well end-up being the root of his political demise. Nobody eversaid change was easy, but I'm here to tell you that change isessential. In today's blog post I'll discuss why CEO's andentrepreneurs (and not just politicians) need to become masters atcatalyzing and leading change.While there is little debatethat the successful implementation of change can createan extreme competitive advantage, it is not well understood thatthe lack of doing so can send a company (or an individual'scareer) into a death spiral. Companies that seek out and embracechange are healthy, growing, and dynamic organizations whilecompanies that fear change are stagnant entities on their way to aslow and painful death. Agility, innovation, disruption,fluidity, decisiveness, commitment, and above all else abias toward action will lead to the creation of change. It isthe process of change which results in evolving, growingand thriving companies. Much has been written about the importanceof change, but there is very little information in circulationabout how to actually create it. While most executives andentrepreneurs have come to accept the concept of changemanagement as a legitimate business practice, and change leadershipas a legitimate executive priority in theory, I havefound very few organizations that have effectivelyintegrated change as a core discipline and focus area inreality. Leading change is certainly notwithout risk, but if implemented properly it can breathe lifeback into the most tired business. So, why is it that somany established companies struggle with the concept of change?Many times it is simply because companies have been doing the samethings, in the same ways, and for the same reasons for so long thatthey struggle with the concept of change. Consider the modernworkplace...In executive circles, leaders often talk aboutemployees who are not on-board, resist change, and are reluctant totry new things. And among the ranks ofemployees, conversations that take place in thehallways and break rooms often center around whether ornot executives really know what they're doing, and whether thenewest change initiative is just a passing fad. Actually,these reactions are reasonable, given the pace that change isoccurring in most of organizations.One of my contentions about whychange is difficult to implement is that too many executives wantperfection to proceed action, and the truth is that the pursuit ofperfection is one of great adversaries of speed. In fact, atthe risk of being controversial I'm going to take theposition that perfection does not exist. I hate to break it toyou, but those of you who regard yourselves as perfectionistssimply exhibit perfectionistic tendencies in an unrealisticattempt to achieve what cannot be had. The pursuit ofperfectionism does not result in an increase in quality, but itwill result in time delays, cost overruns, missed deadlines andunkept commitments. I would suggest that rather than seeking whatcannot in most cases ever be achieved, that it makes more sense toseek the highest standard of quality that makes economic senserelative to the constraints of an ever shifting marketplace.One ofthe key considerations that must be understood whenimplementing change is the necessity of moving quickly. There arethose that would argue that speed in synonymous withundisciplined decisioning, but I would caution you againstconfusing speed with reckless abandon I'm a big proponent ofplanning, assessment, analysis and strategy, but only if itis concluded in a timely fashion. "Analysis Paralysis"leads to missed opportunities and failed initiatives.Earlier in mycareer I served as Director of Internet Strategy for what was atthat time the world's largest web-enablement firm. While serving inthat position I coined the term e-velocity which we trademarked andused to describe the influence that technology was having on thepace at which business had to be conducted in order to remaincompetitive. It used to be acceptable to take 12 to 18 months toroll-out an initiative, but in today's world you better be able todo it in 90 days or it will be obsolete before it gets tomarket.When I first started in business it was usual and customaryto produce 5 and 10 year business plans and today I work off ofrolling 90 day tactical business plans. The latest advances inBusiness Process Management (BPM) have seen a reduction in theplanning and budgeting cycle from 120 and 90 days to 45 days. But,is 45 days good enough? How many days constitute a responsive cycletime? Many believe the right number is between 5 and 10 days. Whyis cycle time reduction important? Because shorter planning andbudgeting processes facilitate greater flexibility andresponsiveness.In today's competitive business environment you mustquickly be able to assess risk and make timely decisions. Youcannot be successful being guided by fear and hesitation. When indoubt, remember that "Speed Kills" and that "he who hesitates islost." Don't fear change...embrace it. I thinkGeneral George S. Patton said it best: "A good planviolently executed today is far and away better than a perfect plantomorrow."