When We Change the Driver but Keep the Broken Bus
The danger of preserving yesterday's structures while demanding tomorrow's performance
There is something interesting about institutions that were once celebrated for their excellence but later struggle to reproduce the very standards that earned them their reputation.
We have seen it in football. We have seen it in businesses, government institutions, educational establishments and organisations that once occupied positions of considerable influence.
Consider a bus that was once admired for its reliability. It travelled long distances, carried its passengers safely and consistently reached its destinations. People trusted it because of its performance. Its reputation was not built on promises but on years of dependable service.
Then, gradually, things began to change. The bus became unreliable. It experienced mechanical problems, struggled on familiar routes and increasingly failed to reach its destinations on time.
The owners responded by changing the driver.
When the new driver failed to restore the bus to its former performance, another driver was appointed. When that appointment also failed to produce the desired results, the search for another driver continued.
Yet, throughout these changes, very little attention was given to the condition of the bus itself.
The engine remained questionable. The maintenance practices remained unchanged. The mechanical systems continued operating according to arrangements that had perhaps served the bus well many years earlier.
Everyone expected a different journey, but nobody seriously examined the vehicle.
We may laugh at such an arrangement, but how often do we reproduce it in our institutions?
When yesterday's success becomes today's comfort
Success has a way of establishing confidence. It gives an institution an identity, creates expectations and provides a history that people can proudly associate themselves with.
There is nothing wrong with celebrating that history. In fact, institutions need their history. It reminds them of what they have achieved, the values they once upheld and the standards they should aspire to maintain.
The danger begins when history becomes a substitute for progress.
An institution can become so comfortable with the methods that once produced success that it struggles to acknowledge when circumstances have changed.
The environment evolves. Technology advances. Expectations shift. Competitors learn, adapt and improve. Yet the institution continues measuring its present capabilities against its previous achievements.
It remembers how successful it was without sufficiently examining what made that success possible and whether those conditions still exist.
Yesterday's achievements then become a source of reassurance rather than a reason for renewed responsibility.
The uncomfortable truth is that what made us successful yesterday may not be enough to sustain us tomorrow.
Changing people without changing systems
Leadership changes are sometimes necessary. A new leader can introduce fresh thinking, challenge established practices and bring renewed energy into an organisation.
However, leadership appointments should not be confused with institutional transformation.
A new leader entering an organisation inherits more than an office and a job description. They inherit its culture, operating procedures, established relationships, decision making processes, resource allocation practices and sometimes deeply entrenched attitudes.
Some of these structures may be valuable. Others may be obstacles disguised as traditions.
If the new leader is expected to produce different results while being restricted to the same ineffective systems, the institution may simply be preparing another person to inherit the same difficulties.
This is where we must distinguish between changing the driver and repairing the vehicle.
A driver can influence the journey, but cannot independently correct every mechanical deficiency.
Equally, a leader cannot reasonably be expected to transform an institution if the institution is unwilling to examine the structures within which that leader must operate.
This does not absolve leaders of responsibility. Some leaders fail because of their own decisions, competence or lack of vision. But it is equally irresponsible to attribute every institutional failure to the person occupying the leadership position.
Sometimes, the problem is individual. Sometimes, it is structural. Sometimes, it is the unfortunate combination of both.
Wisdom requires us to establish the difference before prescribing the remedy.
The loyalty that protects stagnation
One of the most difficult obstacles to institutional renewal is emotional attachment.
People become attached to the identities, traditions and personalities associated with an institution's former success. Questioning established practices can therefore be interpreted as disrespecting its history.
This creates an unfortunate situation in which loyalty is measured by one's willingness to defend existing arrangements rather than by one's commitment to the institution's continued relevance.
But genuine loyalty should not require us to protect what is no longer working.
If we love an institution, we should want it to remain capable of serving its purpose. We should be willing to celebrate its achievements while honestly confronting its shortcomings.
Preserving an institution's identity does not mean preserving every practice associated with its past.
Some traditions deserve protection. Some practices require improvement. Others must be retired altogether.
There is a difference between honouring our foundations and refusing to build upon them.
The courage to examine the engine
Institutional renewal requires more than identifying what is wrong. It requires the willingness to investigate why it has remained wrong.
It requires questions that may be uncomfortable:
Are our recruitment and talent development practices still appropriate?
Are our decision making structures encouraging innovation or protecting familiarity?
Are we promoting people because they are capable of taking the institution forward or because they are comfortable maintaining existing arrangements?
Are we measuring performance against present realities or celebrating standards that belonged to another era?
Are we prepared to replace ineffective systems, even when those systems were established by people we respect?
These questions are not invitations to dismantle everything that exists. They are invitations to distinguish between what deserves preservation and what requires renewal.
An institution that refuses to examine itself eventually risks becoming a monument to its own history.
It may retain its name, buildings, reputation and ceremonies while gradually losing the capacity to deliver what those things once represented.
The most dangerous form of institutional decline may therefore be the one that remains hidden behind the appearance of continuity.
Becoming relevant without losing ourselves
Perhaps the greatest challenge is finding the balance between preserving identity and embracing change.
Renewal should not mean abandoning everything that made an institution meaningful. It should mean understanding which foundations remain valuable and finding better ways of building upon them.
A bus does not need to lose its identity because it requires a new engine, improved technology or a different maintenance philosophy.
Likewise, an institution does not have to abandon its history to embrace a different future.
What it needs is the humility to acknowledge that the demands of the road may have changed.
The route may be familiar, but the conditions are not necessarily the same. The passengers may still trust the institution, but trust cannot indefinitely survive without performance.
We cannot keep asking people to believe in the destination while ignoring the condition of the vehicle taking them there.
A final reflection
Perhaps we should occasionally pause before demanding another driver.
Perhaps we should first establish whether the vehicle is roadworthy, whether its maintenance practices are adequate and whether its mechanical systems are capable of supporting the journey ahead.
The same principle applies to our workplaces, businesses, institutions and personal lives.
When something repeatedly fails to deliver, changing the people responsible for delivering it may be necessary. But it should never become an excuse for avoiding an examination of the environment in which they are expected to perform.
Sometimes, the person behind the steering wheel needs to change.
Sometimes, the person responsible for maintaining the vehicle needs to be held accountable.
And sometimes, the entire maintenance philosophy needs reconsideration.
The wisdom lies in knowing which problem we are trying to solve.
We cannot keep changing drivers and expect a broken bus to become roadworthy.
Yesterday's success deserves recognition, but tomorrow's success demands preparation.
Perhaps the question we should be asking is not simply who should lead us next, but whether we have created an institution in which the next leader can genuinely succeed.
Because an institution's greatest achievement is not that it once knew how to succeed.
It is that it continues learning how to succeed when the world around it changes.
Reflection questions
Are we preserving valuable foundations, or protecting outdated practices simply because they are familiar?
When performance declines, do we investigate the systems responsible for producing it, or do we immediately search for someone to blame?
Have we become so attached to our previous success that we struggle to recognise the need for renewal?
If we were appointed to lead an institution tomorrow, would we inherit a vehicle capable of moving forward, or would we simply inherit the responsibility of explaining why it cannot?
Umbrellas of the Soul
Discover the structures that shape us. Recognise what needs attention. Become willing participants in the renewal we expect from others.
Comments