Carriers Versus Catalysts of Change

Definition

Leaders undertake change in two fundamentally different ways. A carrier of change imports an innovation or best practice from outside—often something in vogue—and imposes it on the organization. A catalyst of change stimulates energy that's already present by drawing on historical memory, cultural readiness, and employee initiative to spark change from within. Carriers rely on command and control; catalysts work through influence and inspiration. The concept names the conditions that make each approach succeed or fail.

In the Book

The Carrier Approach (Risky): When James McNerney took over 3M from legendary innovations-driven culture, he brought Six Sigma—the discipline that had worked for him at GE. Thousands of workers became "Black Belts." Productivity soared. But Six Sigma's standardization and focus on measurable efficiency began suffocating 3M's historical strength: radical experimentation. Post-it Notes and Scotch Tape came from an era when new ideas got "almost unlimited time and funding with little accountability." Under McNerney, "the new-idea spigot began to dry up." Art Fry (Post-it inventor) lamented how fast a culture could be torn apart. When McNerney left, his successor George Buckley observed: "Perhaps one of the mistakes...is that when you value sameness more than you value creativity, I think you potentially undermine the heart and soul of a company like 3M." The approach is like transplanting a palm tree to Siberia—it either dies or becomes a destructive invasive species.

The Catalyst Approach (Organic): When Steve Ballmer at Microsoft faced decline and morale problems in 2007, he promoted Lisa Brummel, a beloved maverick, to chief people officer. Rather than imposing external programs, Brummel sparked change by restoring small symbols (bringing back towels from locker rooms that had become a heated blog issue, installing Starbucks machines instead of "industrial sludge" coffee) and fixing broken systems (replacing Ballmer's zero-sum ranking system with more flexible performance management). These initiatives came "from the ground up as internal catalysts for change, rather than relying on programs imported from somewhere else." The result: morale improved, attrition fell, and Microsoft ranked among the best multinational workplaces.

Alan Mulally at Ford blended both: he brought structured processes from Boeing (the Business Plan Review, matrix structure) but rooted his overall vision in Ford's own history, studying archives to uncover Henry Ford's original purpose and rebuilding the narrative around "One Ford."

Why It Matters

This concept explains why best-practice programs often fail when transplanted. It reveals that successful change requires deep respect for an organization's identity and readiness. Leaders who understand the difference can choose whether to import rigorously or to catalyze organically—and recognize when each is appropriate. The concept also clarifies that influence (getting people to want to change) is more durable than command (forcing compliance). Organizations with soul resist imported programs that feel alien; they respond to catalysts who help them evolve from within.