Put the Cart Before the Horse

It is a crying shame that most organisations put responsibility for change squarely on the individual. “It is up to you,” they seem to say, “to change yourself, to be positive about change, to work in new ways. To help you, here is some training.” As if the reason why people don’t change is lack of skills...

And, because the business abdicates responsibility for change to the individual, the organisation doesn’t have to do anything different. It carries on managing their people in the same old ways and then acts surprised when things stay the same, blaming their people’s “resistance to change...”

This kind of thinking is commonplace because it is easy. It is also lazy and ill-informed, for it is placing the cart squarely before the horse.

If a business wants to introduce change, it must have a good reason to do so: either what it is currently doing isn’t working well enough, or it wants to do something differently. Either way, the business is seeking a new outcome. If it wants a new outcome, it needs to manage the business differently: set new goals, adjust processes, tweak measurement and reporting, discuss new topics at meetings, establish new feedback processes and revise its reward processes. It is this new context that demands new skills and hence determines the training that is needed.

So next time your business is embarking on change, before specifying training, ask yourself: what have we done to ensure that we are managing the business to achieve our new goals? To make working in new ways easier and the old ways harder? To change things so that we pay attention to new ways of working?

If we can ask and answer these questions well, then our people will want the training we offer, they will know how they will use their new skills - and success, rather than being a struggle, will be inevitable.

- Mike

Photocredit: Javier Gonzalez / www.sxc.hu

Fight the Right Battles

An incorrect assumption about the purpose of change management causes many change projects to fail. By thinking differently about change, however, we can take control of the process and significantly increase our chances of success.

One of the ways you know a technology is advancing is that it becomes easier to use. Windows is easier to use than MSDOS, the command language Microsoft originally offered on PCs which an ex-colleague once described as "...being as friendly as a cornered rat." Web browsing is more straightforward now than the days when the ‘internet’ was primarily a combination of bulletinboards and FTP. Most of us rarely have to worry about (or even lift up to find out) what is under our car’s bonnet anymore. This happens everywhere – as technology becomes more sophisticated, it becomes less obtrusive. The better it is, the less we have to think about it.

Bizarrely, however, the opposite appears to be happening in management practice. As management thinking and tools develop, it seems that they are becoming more obtrusive and less easy to use. In WW1, the United States moved an army of more than million men across the Atlantic in less than six months using common sense, some forms and a willingness to deliver. Nowadays, companies changing their CRM system take that long simply to ‘engage the stakeholders’. We have allowed management jargon and its evil stepchild, enterprise software, to get in the way of getting things done.

One reason why these things have become cumbersome, awkward and difficult to use is that they are solving the wrong problem. Let's take a look at the business of change, for example.

A tenet of orthodox thinking is that a primary purpose of management of change is to 'overcome resistance' and 'secure buy-in'.

On the face of it, this is a very seductive logic: "We are trying to introduce change. People are resisting change. We need to persuade these people to overcome this resistance if our change is to succeed."

The insidious nature of this logic is that it hangs together and appears very plausible.

But it is wrong, for a couple of reasons.

One is that by focusing on the business of 'change', we do, in fact, create resistance. If we make a big deal of a proposed change, we give would-be sceptics something to resist.

Another is that this logic leads us to believe that unless people buy-in to change, the change won't succeed. The effect of this assumption is give the wrong people an unnecessary ‘pocket veto’ by withholding their support.

Because we have allowed ‘change’ to become a concept in itself, people now focus on the business of change, rather than the change we need. Because we encounter (and inadvertently encourage) resistance, overcoming this resistance and securing buy-in is now seen as the number one aim of change management. Because we have given this idea legitimacy, we have now given people the right to stop, alter or delay our programme because they are unhappy about it. The result is that our projects go late, cost more and fail. Focusing on resistance to change becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Nor do the classic answers to these problems solve anything. The normal response to resistance is to train people in the new way of working, or to work on ways to engage them and to help them to understand "What's in it for me?"

These strategies assume that the reason why people resist is that they don't have enough information - so if we give them the right information their resistance will crumble. But if the cause of the resistance is not to do with their knowledge, then more information will not help, and may, in fact give them more reasons to resist.

What, then is the alternative?

If we take as our start point that our goal is to improve business performance by having people work differently, then the goal of change management ceases to be about overcoming resistance – and becomes instead about putting in place those things that enable, encourage and support working differently. If we think this way then rather than making other people responsible for change that we need, we can take responsibility for making the change happen ourselves. How? Like this.

• Instead of just trying to persuade others to change, let us make the new ways of working easier than the old.
• Instead of imposing training on people, let us require new things of our people so that they recognise that they need new skills and so seek out and want to use the training on offer.
• Instead of asking people to work differently, but managing them in the old way, let us pay attention to new ways of working in the same way we pay attention to existing aspects of performance.
• Instead of trying to change everything (or, for example, our culture) let us change only those things that make a big difference to the end result, so we all understand the focus and can prioritise.
• Instead of hoping that people remember to do new things at the right time, let us give them a clear trigger that tells them: “...and now do something different.”
• Instead of trying to sell the change, let’s have people buy it.

In short, if we want people to race through the water, then let us by all means train them to swim and tell what we want – but let us also take responsibility for cleaning up the water, making it warm, giving them a swimming costume, giving them starting blocks, firing a starter’s pistol and coaching them on their technique rather than complaining about their speed. In other words, make swimming faster the easiest and most natural way to get through the water.

And, by thinking this way, we don't need the panoply of jargon and nonsense that attends upon 'standard' change management - we can just concentrate on working differently. And isn't that what we set out to do?

Mike

Not drowning, but waving...

Successful change implementation requires that you reduce the perception of risk. The best way to do this is to change the work environment so that it makes the change easy.

If I asked you bet your mortgage on a sure thing at the Derby, you would probably be reluctant to do so. But (as many shareholders and customers of the British bank Northern Rock can testify) our mortgages aren't necessarily safe in our financial institutions, either. There are no certainties about the future.

Which is one reason why people worry about change. They can't be sure that it will work out as promised, and they can usually see many ways in which it won't.

So, if we want people to work differently (which is all, really, we mean by 'business change' most of the time), we need to understand where they see the risks to be. And this is where many traditional views of change fall down.

This is because most approaches to change look at things like 'overcoming resistance' and 'obtaining buy-in' - which is to say that they look at creating a positive upside for the individual to change. This is fine, as far as it goes, but does nothing to address the underlying cause of resistance - namely the individual's perception of risk.

It is like teaching someone on dry land to swim and telling them it's great and they will love it, but not letting them near the water to practice if they agree to not to worry about drowning.

Effective approaches to change, however, put much more emphasis on reducing the perception of risk. How? By changing the work environment so that people need to work differently to succeed - but also taking care that the new way of working is also the easiest. In other words, put them into the water gently, with support - even before they know how to swim properly, so that they realise that the water isn't as dangerous as they thought.

Less friendly, but in many cases even more effective, is to remove the choice altogether: make the change quickly and have them accommodate to the new way of working regardless of whether they have bought in or not - thus stopping their fear of the unknown from getting them in the way. But of course, pushing people into the water is only going to work if (a) the water is a comfortable temperature (b) people can swim and (c) they've changed into their swimming costume...

So next time you're thinking about change, worry less about the swimmer and worry more about warming up the swimming pool...

Mike

The Emperor's New Talk

The terminology of the change industry gets in the way of doing real change. Try cutting out the jargon and watch performance improve.

My friend and ex-colleague, Vincent Rousselet, has considerable intelligence and great experience of making and seeing change happen. I interviewed him today for the book I'm writing on change implementation - working title: Everything You Know About Change Is Wrong (But You Can Do Something About It) - and in the course of an excellent discussion, we wondered if, for the next change his organisation is implementing, he should remove all reference to the word 'change' altogether.

"Don't say we're implementing a change - say this is how we are going to work differently". An immediate change of focus, from jargon and 'stuff' to real activity. A chance for people to focus on real work, not workshops.

And this, of course, is one of the themes of the book. If you are managing change, you are not delivering it. If you are engaging stakeholders, you are not getting people to do things differently. If you are developing a communications plan, then you're not talking to your people.

It's like we've all been infected by a disease. Politicians talk like this. Business schools train their graduates to talk like this. And we pay consultants thousands of pounds to talk like this. And, after a while, we begin to believe it too: if we say certain words and do certain activities, we can sound impressive and make it look like we are doing real work, but we're not: in fact we are doing things that get in the way of real work.

Colette, my wife, says these things are 'Waffle Words' - words that sound meaningful and make you feel intelligent, but actually mean very little and deliver less. But the purpose of change is not to engage stakeholders, or to execute a comms plan: it is to improve business performance by working differently. Anything else is noise.

So next time you're involved in an activity to have people work differently, try this: do not permit anyone to use the following words and see what happens. I'll guarantee that people focus more on real results rather than the jargon.

• Change (try 'working differently')
• Strategic (try 'big' or 'important')
• Tactical (try 'small')
• Stakeholder (try 'someone who needs to do something')
• Commitment (try 'what we need them to do')
• Intervention (try 'task' or 'activity')
• Communications (try 'letting people know what they need to work differently')
• Outcome (try 'improved performance')
• Vision (try 'what we need to do')
• Rationale (try 'reason')
• Engagement (try 'working with each other')
• Model (try 'way of looking at it')
• Deliverable (try 'what we need to have')
• Performance System / incentives (try 'pay and perks')
• Process (try 'how to do something')
• Culture (try ' how we talk and do things round here')
• Analysis (try ' work out what I need to know to move forward')

To make it more interesting, try fining your consultants, say, £5 every time they use one of these terms. You could get a refund on their fee in a couple of hours...

I'm sure you can think of many others - I'd like to see your your thoughts and suggestions in the comments section below - let's see if we can create a dictionary of change nonsense together...

- Mike