Evolution and Revolution
While the spelling of the two words differ by just a "r", their meanings are more subtly linked than clearly distinguished. I think the difference is best defined mathematically and in a graphical form, where, in general (ie, without getting into any complicated calculation of calculus), the evolution of a trend may be depicted as a curve of gradually changing gradient, either rising or declining, whereas a revolution forms a sharp spike on such curve. What is intriguing about the phenomenon of revolution is the mystery of what forces are at play which lead to such a tipping point of sudden change, whatever the nature of change is in question - ie, political, economic, social, technological, or scientific.
History should provide ample guides, with revolutions of both the tragic kind - the French Revolution and the Cultural Revolution - and the enlightening kind, most notably the Industrial Revolution. There is surely no shortage of literature for anyone interested in those era-defining events to trace for the relevant details. Whatever were the causes of any notable historical revolution, the abrupt spontaneity and the critical mass of change were truly phenomenal - hence revolutionary. But the true motivation for change couldn't have possibly just emerged overnight. Ideas, beliefs, and ultimately the urge for change must have accumulated and evolved over time. Evolution has got to be the mother of revolution.
Indeed it must hold true for any mankind invention, however ground-breaking it might be and far-reaching its result could be. Knowledge evolves by way of accumulation. It is the same even for the chic iPod, which together with the intelligent itunes, have seemingly revolutionized the whole music industry in, perhaps, just months. But music has long been digitalized into its MP3 format, and swapping long become prevalent on free Internet platforms, most notably Napster, before Apple came by and victoriously claimed its online territory. Even in the Internet age and world where a critical mass for change is far more readily reached for any revolutionary cause, evolution of ideas still has to come first.
In the corporate world, any sudden change which may bring about a significant impact to people's usual ways of doing things is usually received with resistance, if not animosity. As such, any revolutionary mind is more readily judged as a misfit than accommodated. Indeed, more often than not, for the major corporate decisions to work, they have to evolve through ample and engaging stages of constructive discussion. That is, except the earth-shattering aftermath of some rampant corporate buyout or M&A activities, or that in the wake of some major management manoeuvers, when the new ruling elites will usually have to strike new ground to stamp their authority. But perhaps what ensues in those uncertain circumstances is better termed as corporate politics than revolution.
History should provide ample guides, with revolutions of both the tragic kind - the French Revolution and the Cultural Revolution - and the enlightening kind, most notably the Industrial Revolution. There is surely no shortage of literature for anyone interested in those era-defining events to trace for the relevant details. Whatever were the causes of any notable historical revolution, the abrupt spontaneity and the critical mass of change were truly phenomenal - hence revolutionary. But the true motivation for change couldn't have possibly just emerged overnight. Ideas, beliefs, and ultimately the urge for change must have accumulated and evolved over time. Evolution has got to be the mother of revolution.
Indeed it must hold true for any mankind invention, however ground-breaking it might be and far-reaching its result could be. Knowledge evolves by way of accumulation. It is the same even for the chic iPod, which together with the intelligent itunes, have seemingly revolutionized the whole music industry in, perhaps, just months. But music has long been digitalized into its MP3 format, and swapping long become prevalent on free Internet platforms, most notably Napster, before Apple came by and victoriously claimed its online territory. Even in the Internet age and world where a critical mass for change is far more readily reached for any revolutionary cause, evolution of ideas still has to come first.
In the corporate world, any sudden change which may bring about a significant impact to people's usual ways of doing things is usually received with resistance, if not animosity. As such, any revolutionary mind is more readily judged as a misfit than accommodated. Indeed, more often than not, for the major corporate decisions to work, they have to evolve through ample and engaging stages of constructive discussion. That is, except the earth-shattering aftermath of some rampant corporate buyout or M&A activities, or that in the wake of some major management manoeuvers, when the new ruling elites will usually have to strike new ground to stamp their authority. But perhaps what ensues in those uncertain circumstances is better termed as corporate politics than revolution.
Comments