Minimal Viable Process Change explores how larger transformations are often more effectively achieved through atomic, incremental steps. Organizations often struggle with change because large transformations feel risky, disruptive, and imposed from above and are usually met with resistance on multiple fronts. A practical alternative is to introduce improvements through small, testable experiments.

This approach can be called Minimal Viable Process Change (MVPC) or, when applied to behavior and norms, Minimal Viable Cultural Change (MVCC).

Instead of declaring sweeping changes, teams run small experiments, measure results, and learn together. This is very much akin to James Clear’s notion of Atomic Habits for transforming as individuals and is the whole synthesis behind the notion of Atomic Rituals where “Rituals” are essentially the “Habits” of groups, teams and organizations. This is also akin to applying the Talent Code to business challenges. It is also the Goldilocks Growth Zone applied to how teams work: each change is the smallest step that is still a real stretch and produces a measurable result.

Audio Dialog Interpretation of MVPC

The Core Idea of The MVPC / MVCC Loop

Treat improvements the same way innovative companies treat product development. Each improvement runs through T.H.R.I.V.E., the same loop we use for any kind of growth: Target, Hypothesize, Reach, Investigate, Validate, and Evolve.

The MVPC / MVCC Loop: T.H.R.I.V.E. A vertical diagram of the T.H.R.I.V.E. loop applied to process and cultural change: Target, Hypothesize, Reach, Investigate, Validate, and Evolve, then loop back into the next Target. The MVPC / MVCC Loop: T.H.R.I.V.E. A small-change loop for process or cultural experimentation T Target Name what we are solving for and why it matters, then find the crack where the seed can take root. H Hypothesize Start with a hypothesis about a small change that might improve the system. R Reach Introduce the change into the workflow and run with it for a short period, often a sprint. I Investigate Measure the results: good, bad, or indifferent. V Validate Examine with the team what actually happened, and whether the hypothesis held. E Evolve Keep, adjust, or discard the change, and reverse it if the experiment fails. Take a breath, then loop again. Loop back into the next Target

Minimal Viable Process Changes reduce resistance because the team experiences the change as an experiment rather than a mandate. And, for the skeptic, they may assume it will fail in the near term and they will be proven right; so, they may actually embrace and invite the experiment.

Over time, these loops create meaningful improvements without large disruptions.

Why This Works

1. Reduces Resistance to Change

People resist imposed solutions but are often open to experiments. By stating: “If the results are not positive, we will undo the change” leaders remove the fear of permanent disruption. It also opens the door to skeptics feeling the proposed approach’s ability to solve for the stated objective(s) will be quickly (dis)proven with little investment and opportunity for vindication. The middle ground of adjusting the approach before another attempt is left as an open option.

This aligns with Edgar Schein’s insight that culture evolves through shared learning experiences, not directives.

2. Turns Change Into Learning

Instead of arguing opinions, teams examine evidence from real experiments. This reflects the Build–Measure–Learn loop popularized in modern innovation methods. Learning becomes continuous rather than episodic.

3. Builds Psychological Safety

Patrick Lencioni emphasizes that healthy teams rely on trust and openness. When experiments are reversible and evaluated collectively, teams feel safer sharing honest feedback. Failure becomes a source of learning rather than blame.

Key Principles of Lencioni’s Trust Model:

  • Vulnerability is Essential: Trust is not just about relying on someone’s performance; it is about being open, honest, and comfortable sharing personal shortcomings and asking for help.
  • Leader Leads the Way: Leaders must model vulnerability first by admitting their own mistakes, setting a tone of openness.
  • Trust Eliminates Fear of Conflict: When trust is established, teams engage in constructive debate, rather than avoiding conflict to maintain artificial harmony.
  • Overcoming the Absence of Trust: To build trust, teams can use exercises that encourage sharing personal histories and understanding team member work styles, which fosters a sense of safety. 

4. Reinforces Deliberate Practice

Daniel Coyle, in The Talent Code, describes how mastery develops through repetition, engagement, purpose, and strong feedback. Short cycles of experimentation mirror that process at the organizational level. Teams improve through practice and feedback, not through theory alone.

5. Follows the “Bullets before Cannonballs” Principle

Jim Collins, in Great by Choice, recommends testing ideas through small, low-risk experiments (“bullets”) before committing large resources (“cannonballs”). See Fire Bullets, Then Cannonballs.

MVPC and MVCC apply this same concept to process and culture.

6. Right-Sizes Each Change

Every MVPC is sized like a just-right challenge in the Goldilocks Growth Zone. Too small, and the change is business as usual, with nothing meaningful to learn. Too big, and it becomes Waterfall: big effort, late feedback, and failures that make the next change harder. For a team, viable means solving for a purpose people understand, so a small step makes sense to the people taking it. When an experiment succeeds and the team keeps it, that change becomes the new normal, and the next experiment can start from a higher baseline.

7. Helps Get Past Immunity to Change

Harvard researchers Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey found that much resistance runs deeper than skepticism. In Immunity to Change, they describe hidden competing commitments, held in place by big assumptions, that quietly pull a person or a whole team back toward old behaviors, even when they sincerely want to change.

Their way through looks a lot like an MVPC: test each big assumption with a safe, modest experiment designed so it could prove the assumption wrong. MVPC invites skeptics to disprove the change, while Immunity to Change invites the people changing to disprove their own fears. Both work because the experiment is small enough to keep anxiety tolerable and reversible enough to invite disproof.

The two also complement each other. A process experiment can succeed on the data and still fade if an unspoken commitment is protecting the old way. Kegan and Lahey’s four-column map can surface what to test, and an MVPC sizes the test.

Applying MVPC to Culture (MVCC)

Culture is not changed directly through values statements or announcements.

Instead, culture shifts through repeated behaviors that prove effective.

Small behavioral experiments can include:

  • Introducing blameless postmortems
  • Changing decision transparency
  • Adjusting how teams run retrospectives
  • Experimenting with new collaboration practices

Each experiment becomes a learning loop.

Each experiment becomes a learning loop A scalable vertical SVG showing how experiments lead over time to new behaviors, repeated practices, new norms, and culture change. Each Experiment Becomes a Learning Loop Over time, small experiments compound into culture change Each experiment becomes a learning loop. What starts as a small test can gradually reshape how a team works together. Experiments New Behaviors Repeated Practices New Norms Culture Change What was once tested becomes how the team naturally works.

Practical Example

Instead of declaring: “We are moving to a new development process.”

A leader might say: “We believe shorter release cycles could improve learning and delivery speed. Let’s try this during the next sprint and review the results together.”

At the sprint retrospective the team discusses:

  • What improved?
  • What became harder?
  • How should we adjust before we enter the next experimental iteration?

The team then decides whether to keep or modify the change.

Benefits of the Approach of Minimal Viable Process Change

  • Lower resistance to change
  • Faster learning cycles
  • Evidence-based decisions
  • Increased team ownership
  • Continuous improvement rather than large disruptions

Where to Plant the Seed of Change of an MVPC

Pressure and stress create cracks. On the Big Island in Hawaii, freshly hardened lava seems incredibly infertile. However, cracks do appear. A crack does more than split the rock. It becomes a place where several things quietly accumulate:

  • Dust carried by the wind
  • Moisture that can finally pool
  • Organic debris
  • Seeds that would otherwise blow past

By the time a plant finally takes root, the crack is already doing part of the work. The conditions that make growth possible have begun gathering on their own.

Organizational systems often behave the same way.

When pressure builds, the crack that appears is rarely empty. Around it you will usually find that several ingredients for improvement have already started to collect.

  • People may already be talking about the problem.
  • Someone may have quietly tried a workaround.
  • Metrics may already be revealing the cost of the issue.
  • Frustration may have created unusual alignment across teams.

In other words, the environment is already preparing itself for change.

A Rose That Grows From Concrete

MVPC Growth Through the Cracks

An MVPC can often seem like a daunting challenge, much like trying to grow a rose from concrete. Finding the right crack in the concrete to plant the right seed at the right time is crucial. The right seed at the right time in a crack in lava can begin the transition from infertile ground to very fertile ground much as is constantly happening in Hawaii.

What to look for? Ideally, look for a friendly but credible early adopter to run your MVPC. Find out a measurable impact that can have notable impact but isn’t in a mission critical path. You want to minimize resistance, show prudence, and be willing to fail and learn. The openness to failure makes a shift to improve or a second experiment more palatable. The impact needs to be measurable and demonstrable. If you fail on the first try, quote Michael Jordan on failing over and over again and that is why he succeeded…

Minimal Viable Process Change M.V.P.C.Download

The Rose That Grew From Concrete

Learned Resilience and unequal starting points, inspired by Tupac Shakur’s poem The Rose That Grew from Concrete, highlighting resilience in adversity.

A poem by Tupac Shakur and Interpretation

USGS- Volcano Watch — From lava flow to forest: Primary succession

One of the most striking aspects of a newly formed lava flow is its barren and sterile nature. The process of colonization of such flows by plants and animals is called primary succession, and it is also found on other newly formed surfaces such as glacial deposits, large landslides, and river deposits.

A Simple Summary of Minimal Viable Process Change

Minimal Viable Process Change (MVPC) and Minimal Viable Cultural Change (MVCC) treat organizational improvement as a series of small experiments.

Rather than imposing change, leaders create learning loops where teams test ideas, measure results, and adapt together.

This approach reflects principles described by thinkers such as Edgar Schein, Patrick Lencioni, Daniel Coyle, and Jim Collins, all of whom emphasize that sustainable improvement comes from shared learning, trust, deliberate practice, and disciplined experimentation.

T.H.R.I.V.E. for Minimal Viable Process Change

  • T: Target
    Name what we are solving for and why it matters, then find the crack where the seed can take root.
  • H: Hypothesize
    Start with a hypothesis about a small change that might improve the system.
  • R: Reach
    Introduce the change into the workflow and run with it for a short period, often a sprint.
  • I: Investigate
    Measure the results: good, bad, or indifferent.
  • V: Validate
    Examine with the team what actually happened, and whether the hypothesis held.
  • E: Evolve
    Keep, adjust, or discard the change. If the experiment fails, we reverse it. Then we take a breath and loop into the next Target.

See Also – Minimal Viable Process Change Resources

Atomic Rituals — Small Practices That Compound Over Time

Atomic Rituals explores how small, intentional practices gradually reshape behavior, identity, and results. Rather than relying on dramatic transformations, the framework emphasizes repeatable micro-actions that accumulate into meaningful change. This philosophy closely parallels Minimal Viable Process Change, where small experiments evolve into new habits and ultimately new cultural norms. Together, these ideas show how consistent, incremental improvement can reshape both personal and organizational systems.

The Talent Code Applied

Daniel Coyle’s work in The Talent Code examines how skill and excellence grow through deep practice, coaching, and repeated feedback loops. The research highlights how progress rarely comes from large leaps but from cycles of small adjustments guided by learning. This aligns strongly with Minimal Viable Process Change, where teams test small changes, observe results, and refine their approach through reflection. The insights in The Talent Code help explain why iterative experimentation can steadily build stronger teams and cultures.

Plan–Do–Study–Act (PDSA) Cycle — W. Edwards Deming

The Plan–Do–Study–Act cycle is one of the most widely used frameworks for continuous improvement. It encourages teams to test ideas in small experiments, observe results, and adjust based on learning. The spirit closely parallels Minimal Viable Process Change, where a small change is introduced, observed during real work, and then either refined or abandoned. Studying PDSA helps leaders understand how disciplined experimentation can improve systems without triggering resistance to large top‑down change.

Toyota Kata — Mike Rother

Toyota Kata explores how organizations develop improvement routines through small, repeated experiments. Rather than implementing sweeping changes, teams move toward a target condition through incremental learning cycles. This philosophy aligns strongly with Minimal Viable Process Change because it treats improvement as a series of structured experiments rather than one‑time initiatives. The book and its associated practices illustrate how experimentation gradually reshapes team habits and organizational culture.

The Lean Startup — Eric Ries

Eric Ries popularized the idea of running rapid experiments to test hypotheses before committing to large investments. While his work focuses primarily on product development, the same logic applies to process and cultural change. Minimal Viable Process Change borrows the same principle: test small, learn quickly, and evolve the system based on evidence rather than assumption. The Lean Startup framework provides useful language for understanding why small experiments outperform large speculative changes.

Psychological Safety and Learning Teams — Amy Edmondson

Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety explains why teams are more willing to experiment when they know failure will be treated as learning rather than punishment. Minimal Viable Process Change relies on this dynamic because each experiment is explicitly reversible if it does not improve outcomes. When teams feel safe to test ideas, improvement cycles accelerate and innovation becomes part of daily work. Edmondson’s work provides the cultural foundation that makes small experimentation loops sustainable.

Leading Change — John Kotter

John Kotter’s work on organizational change highlights how lasting transformation rarely happens through single directives. Instead, change becomes durable when new behaviors spread, become practiced, and eventually turn into shared norms. This progression mirrors the pathway described in the Minimal Viable Process Change model: experiments lead to behaviors, behaviors become practices, and practices evolve into culture. Kotter’s framework helps explain why incremental behavioral change can ultimately reshape organizations.

The Goldilocks Growth Zone

The Goldilocks Growth Zone describes a challenge sized just right: big enough to stretch us, yet small enough to repeat, learn from, and build on. It explains why steps that are too small change little, while steps that are too big invite failure, lasting harm, and late course corrections. The page treats Minimal Viable Process Change as the zone applied to how teams work, and shows how each kept change can raise a team’s baseline. Readers sizing their next process experiment will find a practical way to judge whether it is too small, too big, or just right.

Immunity to Change

In Immunity to Change, Harvard researchers Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey explain why people and organizations so often fail to make changes they sincerely want. Beneath the behaviors that block a goal, they find hidden competing commitments, held in place by big assumptions. Their four-column map helps surface those assumptions, and they suggest testing each one with a safe, modest experiment designed to produce disconfirming data. Leaders whose process changes keep fading despite good results will find a way to understand the inner side of resistance there.