Change of any sort seems to come in two different ways, at least when examined from a distance. The first way could be called “evolutionary”. Evolution, to this non-scientist, is the process by which little changes eventually create large changes. Think Grand Canyon, or the Japanese approach to product development. This is the process of going from a 4 to a 4.1 to a 4.2 to a 4.3 to a … to a 9. The second way, “Revolution”, is in theory an immediate leap to a better place. It is going from a 4 to a 9 with no intermediary steps. Think 1917 Russia, quantum mechanics, the Internet, or Black Sabbath’s first album.
Much like the Chinese concept of Yin/Yang, or the Japanese In/Yo, there’s a little revolution in all evolution, and there’s certainly a little evolution in every revolution. The difference is one of perspective and distance. But generally, we can say that some changes occur much, much faster than others. Over the course of mankind, it’s pretty obvious (to me) that we are in a perpetual state of revolution, at least in comparison to our first couple hundred thousand years. Or is it that we remain in a perpetual state of accelerated evolution?
The evolution/revolution dichotomy is really crucial to any type of planning, whether it’s personal or professional. When comparing (and contrasting) two different things, people inevitably consider “which is better?” or “which one am I?” There are obviously benefits and costs to both, depending on the desired change. When you are thinking about your goals, consider how much evolution and revolution would be optimal.
One of the best ways to assess your plans for a desired change is to ask “is the ultimate goal dividable?” What I mean by this relates to the trek from where you are at, to where you want to go. For example, if your goal is to go to Japan, getting to China is certainly a good start, but still not there yet. Saving the money for the plane is also a way to get closer to achieving the goal.
The evolution/revolution distinction is vital to planning and goal setting.
