Gonna have to face it, we're addicted to change
 Subscribe to the Three Star Leadership Blog |
| The Working Supervisor's Support Kit is a collection of information and tools to help working supervisors do a better job. It's based on what Wally's learned in over twenty years of supervisory skills training. |
| Follow me on Twitter |
| For weekly tips and resources pointers, check Wally's Three Star Leadership Letter |
| Find out more about having Wally speak to your company or convention. |
| Find out more about Wally's coaching services. |
 |
There's a great article over at Wharton titled: "A Change Agent Sees Change 'Addiction'". Here's the teaser copy.
"After 20 years of experience leading change management programs in the U.S., Europe and New Zealand, BP executive Fiona MacLeod has concluded that the corporate world is "addicted" to serial change management programs that consume massive resources but ultimately fail to solve the problems they aim to address."
Sounds right. Consider the experience of one of my coaching clients.
He worked for a large company for seven years. In that time, the company had at least one management fad per year. They found their cheese, learned about some fish market, discovered their strengths, and tried to master the carrot principle. They aspired to develop into Level 5 Leaders but only got to level 1 before they moved on to something else.
The kind of change we're talking about isn't the incremental, make-things-a-little-better every day change that goes on all the time. The kind of change we're addicted to is usually called a "change initiative."
Change initiatives are imposed by top executives on those below them on the org chart. There are a limited number of reasons.
Sometimes change is needed. This is rare, but it does happen from time to time.
A top executive has read a book and was impressed. Business book authors today come complete with pre-designed change packages including books, workshop design, assessment tools, and much, much more.
A top executive has read an article in the Wall Street Journal that says all the other executives are reading a book. See paragraph above.
A top executive wants to make his or her "imprint on the organization." This is a popular form of ego gratification that requires the belief that everything done before you got there was not all that good. Change is therefore needed.
A top executive is bored with day-to-day efficient and profitable operations and decides that change will spice things up.
The Business Guru Industry is set up to make those top executive wishes come true. Training directors wishing to prove their worth are the enablers of top executives who want to change. That leads to change, whether we need it or not.
So, is there really good business change? Sure, but it takes work and it's not very exciting after the first year. Here are some tips for getting it right.
Make sure the change is both needed and important. Test your reasoning on an intelligent fifteen-year-old. They're smart enough to understand, but they don't care a whit about your company. They're absolutely fearless and will give you raw feedback. And they already know that you're not all that bright.
Involve the people in the company in defining the problem and crafting a solution. Listen to them. They know better than you about a lot of things. Besides, you won't have to spend months selling them on your idea and then bemoaning their lack of enthusiasm just because you rammed it down their throats.
Give it time. Give it time to work through all your systems.
Give it more time. Give it time to embed itself in your culture. Three to ten years seems about right.
Boss's Bottom Line
If you lead a change initiative successfully, it will be your main priority every day for years. Make sure the change you want is important enough and that your commitment to it is strong enough.
Hi Wally.
"This is a popular form of ego gratification" - Implementing change is like putting a personal stamp on an envelope. Who would enjoy continuing to do the same thing as the one before if you get to be hired as a manager? Maybe even doing it better? I believe that the ego is guilty here. A new manager or CEO wants to make a mark, look what I just did! I changed something. I have seen many changes done, some good, some with no change and even worse some with bad results.
I think it is essential that the goal is a key here. Why do you want to change? What do you want to accomplish? Do we really need to change? Or do we need to improve?
Planning is also an area where we fail. Yes we want to change something, and we have an idea but the consequences are not taken into consideration.
Try to do things better, before trying to change, it might just be the solution.
Good article!
Cheers.
Reply to this
Thanks for that great comment, Frode. At this moment I agree in principle, but not in practice.
My view is that I'm like an EMT called to an accident. What I have to do first is deal with the current, life-threatening problem: reflexive change. Later I might want to suggest an exercise program, but first we have to save the patient.
In other words, I think you're right. But right now I think stopping the cycle of change without purpose is most important.
Reply to this
I very much agree with your assessment. What I would add is that the "need" for change is often caused when there's a vacuum in leadership and direction at the very top. The organization isn't doing as well as the execs would like and, in many cases, it's a lack of accountability starting with them. The execs jump on the VPs and directors who then start looking outside the company for some kind of "fix" for what's missing inside (because they can't tell their bosses they're the ones causing the company to falter). Then the scenario plays out as you describe.
It reminds me of people who are searching for meaning in their lives and they go from one fad to another and they end up frustrated and lost....never satisfied.
Maybe satisfaction can be found and therefore less change "needed" if leadership will just meet the problems head-on inside the organization (the hard way) instead of looking for a "fix" (the easy way) in a book or mantra outside.
Reply to this
Good point. That change initiative doesn't always come from the very top. Sometimes it's a way to "imprint" or just look like you're doing something further down. Thanks for adding that perspective.
Reply to this
"Make sure the change you want is important enough and that your commitment to it is strong enough." This is very sound advice. I would add that you should also be clear about what you may be giving up before you implement a change initiative. Sometimes the price is more that you want to pay.
Great post, Wally!
Reply to this
Yes, Gwyn. Excellent point. There is always the price to consider.
Reply to this
Great points Wally. I especially related to the comments about asking a 15 year old or other totally unbiased advisor. I used to run things by my Grandmother. She was a sharp lady, had lots of practical experience, and never pulled her punches. If I could not convince her, odds were I could not engage the team with the the idea either.
Reply to this
Grandmothers are good! As you note, any intelligent person who doesn't know your business and will tell you the truth will work. Thanks for the comment.
Reply to this
In addition to ego inflation, does constantly changing the game sidestep accountability? Every time structures or processes are rearranged, the definition of success become more elusive. The established metrics are left behind, but there is little consensus on the new definitions of success.
This could work out as a useful survival strategy for change agents to the disadvantage of the company.
Reply to this
Great point. I think you're right. Like constantly re-organizing, constantly starting new initiatives gives those who choose to use it an excuse for not performing the way they should.
Reply to this
I don't think we are addicted to change but rather addicted to change initiatives as a solution to what seems to be perpetually broken in organizations today. It's kind of like weight loss - we always seem to look for an easy way around doing what we know we really need to do. Change initiatives and "change management" processes are used like a pill we take in hopes it will cure us (or worse, "them") when we don't want to deal with what is really making us sick because it is just too hard or we are in denial that we have anything to do with our current state.
I have worked with people at all levels in organizations who wanted change just as much as their leadership did. The ones who actually succeeded did so because they chose to learn what they needed to learn to change what needed to be changed. An initiative can be a catalyst, but it is a mistake to think that a great process will ensure the intended result. A process can provide a useful framework, but must be adapted in partnership with the people the process is designed to change. The only process that will work is the one that is owned by the people involved. And in the end a process doesn't do anything, the people do. But they have to want it and choose it first. No one can make you take that pill no matter how hard they try. If someone really wants to cause change in their organization they should consider starting with the person who looks back at them in the mirror.
Reply to this
What a great insight. Thanks, Susan. I think we do look for the easy way, for the "magic stone" which, if rubbed, will produce perpetual happiness and prosperity. When you pair that up with a short-term focus, where the idea of laboring for a few years to make the change work, you're set up for problems. Thanks for adding you wisdom to the discussion.
Reply to this
Michael's comment on accountability is an interesting question, although I would hope this is a plan of the subconscious. It does bring up another way of judging change initiatives- the softer the measure of success the more likely your pushing a fad. Restructure to cut 50% off your lead time is pretty straight forward. Restructure to improve synergy, very hard to measure.
Reply to this
Wow. That's a great insight and it should give us all a quick way to determine if we're going to create substantive change. Thanks.
Reply to this
Great post Wally and so indicative of the "let's look busy with a reorg / change programme" that constantly goes on in the executive corridors.
I describe M&A activity - of the large scale that ultimately generates zero value (or less) for shareholders - as being one of the worst versions of this behaviour. I would bet the farm that if you were to compare the level of this nonsense between listed and non-listed corporates, you would see a staggering disparity. Companies that have to report back to the financial community every 90 days need to have SOMETHING to talk about and this is good fodder ...
Oh, and I feel I should share with you that I now have an indelible image of you in a good suit, backed by 4 supermodels playing instruments, singing a certain song.
Reply to this
Hmmmmmm. Your point about M & A activity seems right, Rowan. I'm working on a client project now where we're identifying companies who do lots of acquisitions and also get it right more than half the time. The list for activity includes many companies, but only one privately-held company. The list for successful acquisitions includes two companies, one public and the private one.
As for the supermodels and me, I confess that I'm at a loss for words. That rarely happens.
Thanks for the comments.
Reply to this