In order to turn dissonance into action, we must identify its causes. This can be done by analyzing the changing dynamics across the two overlapping axes of what we call the “Adaptive Strategy Matrix.”

First Cause of Dissonance

The first cause of dissonance is the divergence between the industry’s new competitive landscape and an organization’s distinctive competencies to succeed in it. For example, as the amount of information and number of voices have become more abundant online, a news organization’s ability to “cover” the news with a deep bench of staff or freelance reporters has become less of a competitive advantage. News outlets have gained ground by aggregating stories from many sources (including users) for targeted audiences. This divergence between the new competitive landscape and old competencies has occurred in many areas described further in Vol. 2.  The good news, however, is that where there is dissonance, there are also new strategies to discover.

Competitive forces and organizational competencies often evolve on independent paths and can be a major challenge for leaders to keep aligned. As a result, Andy Grove, former CEO of Intel, describes this divergence as not easily visible, yet most fundamental. While the inertia of existing business models can cause competencies to lag, new competencies can also emerge in the margins of the organization and make surprising new opportunities possible.

Second Cause of Dissonance

The second cause of dissonance is the divergence between what customers value the most and old business models. Existing structures often reflect current leaders’ beliefs about historical success in their organizations or field. Grove pointed out that career tracks, emotional attachment and corporate identity deeply influence current leaders’ perceptions, as well as hesitation to change strategies when the consequences are not completely clear. This is why inertia is a major driver of dissonance and inaction.

Moving Out of the Current Stage

“The stakes are very high for independent media. Will it change? Or, will it atrophy? Independent media can become the dominant media in society. Who would have dreamed that 30 years ago?” —Don Tapscott, author of Wikinomics

The people interviewed in The Big Thaw believe the media industry has crossed a critical threshold and is moving out of the current stage of dissonance. Some predict that a major industry restructuring will settle out in the next two years. The financial crisis accelerated this shift and has caused so many newspapers and magazines to close in 2008-09. “While people in media were starting to realize this,” New York University adjunct professor Clay Shirky notes, “they were suddenly robbed of the four to five years they thought they had to respond.” Andrew Golis, deputy publisher of Talking Points Memo (TMC member) noted a key casualty: “I think many of the best publications haven’t been ready for the transition and so the sharpest minds have lost prominence in the debate as a result.”

For more in-depth analysis on the old paradigm of journalism and the role of independent media, download Vol. 1 of The Big Thaw.

This blog is an excerpt from The Big Thaw, a guide to the evolution of independent media, written by Tony Deifell of Q Media Labs and produced by The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets. Learn how your organization can use this report. For more information and recommendations from the study, click here.