Bigger isn't always better, especially when it comes making a change

Big changes, big transformations, big hairy audacious goals! We've all been there trying to jump on the big bandwagon, when making major changes in habits, roles, relationships or technology.

Don't get me wrong, big changes can be required, especially in a crisis, but if the building's not on fire, I'd suggest that evolution and adaptation are always preferable to revolution when trying to make changes at work or home.

Why would small be better than big?

Good question, I'm glad you asked. The simple reason smaller changes are more likely to be successful is, as humans we have a natural reaction to resist big changes. Even if the desired change is a great idea for us personally. Let's be realistic, the majority of us are creatures of habit, whether they are good for us (eating well and exercising) or bad (not sleeping enough , smoking or being inactive), even when the evidence for change is irrefutable. If we've established a habit it's hard for us to change.

There is an alternative approach that works with the human mindset, micro changes. Incremental (1%) gains are easier to adapt to, have less chance of resistance, because they seem less threatening and they can aggregate to much greater values. Most people who watched Olympic cycling in the late noughties will have seen the impact of marginal gains on British cycling (analysing the possible small improvements in a system or process and improving them just a little). This theory took us from one gold medal before 2002 when Sir Dave Brailsford took over to seven in 2008 & 2012. The 1% gain every day is a core principle of so many great sports coaches.

The business world has known this for years - ask your CFO

Even better as the benefits of compounding (combining) are applied to those gains, they continue to grow day by day, week by week, year by year. This is the philosophy that has made Warren Buffet the billionaire investor he is today. He's not rushed to his $58B wealth, he's built it up over 70 years.

So, before you start championing that large change program to revolutionise sales or the fitness routine that will take you from the sofa to the Hydrox games in six months consider these questions.

Do you want to work with nature or against it?

Do you want to have compound gains or one big bang (if it's successful)?

Do you want to nurture a culture of continuous improvement or want to plan an expensive revolution every few years?

I know which option I think will have more success in the long term.