Change Management

Can Organizations Really Change Through Chaos?

February 22, 2012 by robertsrobson 1 Comment

We’re seeing incredible societal change on a global basis. Much of this starts as ‘bottom up’ change and gathers pace. Political regimes can fall almost overnight. This makes it seem like business organisations are incredibly ponderous and slow.

Should change be more chaotic? I’m not sure.

When a regime falls, the political and economical mechanisms may exist to minimise fallout. In some cases, a whole new infrastructure is required, and only once those are in place has the change been completed and all of the potential ‘benefits’ been realised. Look at Libya, for example. When will all aspects of life for most Libyans be better than it was? That’s not to suggest that Gadaffi’s regime was good for most. It simply means that in order to achieve regime change the Libyan people will have had to have made other sacrifices, largely economical, in the short to medium term.

In a large, complex organisation, the interdependencies between departments, countries and business units are, like a country’s economy, so numerous and so embedded in systems and processes that if change is allowed to happen without control then the short-term results could be catastrophic. If information fails to flow, customers are impacted, transactions will fail, or perhaps worse, subtle errors could be introduced that take time to fully emerge and do damage over a period of time.

I believe that change should be initiated, as societal change often is, at the grass roots, by employees. But what’s required is some sort of mechanism that allows ideas to be developed and explored, then implemented in a controlled way if necessary. Companies have to keep delivering to shareholders at the same time as creating new ways of working. Hospitals need to keep treating patients, local authorities need to keep the streets clean.

Organisations need some sort of structure, at some point, to make change work. As does society…

Filed Under: Change Management, Social Change Tagged With: change, chaos, organisations, social change, structure

Reversal Theory as an Integrative Change Management Theory

December 26, 2011 by robertsrobson 4 Comments

Over the last 10 years I’ve used Reversal Theory (e.g Apter, 2001) in my practice as a sport psychologist, organizational development consultant and change manager. One of the things that I’d like to do with this blog is to develop a body of content that describes Reversal Theory as an integrative theory for change practitioners that will provide a common language and framework for dealing with individual

Apter's Motivational Styles change, team interventions, change leadership, organizational and cultural change.

Reversal Theory is a general psychological theory that makes a connection betweenvalues, motivational states and emotions. It has been developed over more than 30 years and has been researched and applied in a wide range of domains including management and leadership, psychotherapy and counseling, sports and exercise, health and religion.

The Value of Reversal Theory in Change Management

The practical value of Reversal Theory in change management is based on the following observations:

Individuals are operating in a more complex and dynamic organizational setting than ever before, and change is only increasing in pace
Management is increasingly focused on managing conflicting ideas or dilemmas (grey areas, rather than black and white)
Leadership is increasingly recognized as requiring the creation of the right conditions (or climate) for performance
Different organizations, with different strategic ambitions and market conditions require very different capabilities, which in turn demand very different mindsets and behaviours from employees
Individuals, including leaders, can perform exceptionally in one organization (or set of conditions) yet appear quite ordinary in others

What’s Different About Reversal Theory?

Reversal Theory helps us to understand these kinds of complexities in ways that many of the psychological theories used in change management do not, because:

As a state based theory, it helps us to conceive of people as more changeable and less consistent than trait theories
As a general theory it can explain a wide range of phenomena, creating a common language rather than having a patchwork quilt of unrelated theories to work with
However, rather than being in competition with other frameworks, particularly in individual change, it can be used as a diagnostic ‘layer’ with cognitive, behavioural or humanistic interventions
It explains why certain situations appear to warrant opposing or conflicting, even paradoxical, explanations
It provides a map of motivations and emotional experience, which helps us to find ways to engage with people in more precise and compelling ways
It links the internal world of the individual to team dynamics, leadership (climate), and to organizational culture

Reversal Theory in Business and Change Management

Although Reversal Theory has been widely empirically researched, most of its use in the business world has been by practitioners behind the screen of client confidentiality. Apter Development / Apter International, for whom I used to work, has been one of the main users of the theory in Organisational Development, using it as the basis of their work in leadership and management development and employee research. Indeed although, Steve Carter outlined a new model of change agency / change leadership based on Reversal Theory (that I will refer to later) I will be attempting to weave together a wider range of aspects of change management using Reversal Theory, and indeed propose a number of ways in which existing frameworks can be further enhanced by the theory such as (to be further developed):

Creating individual change
Facilitating team change
Developing Change leadership
Understanding organisational culture
Integrating RT with models of organisational change
Assessing change readiness

In doing so, I’d appreciate any feedback either through comments, email or twitter (@robertsrobson).

Now, if you’ve come this far, I’m sure that you’ll be eager to learn what Reversal Theory actually is, so I’d better get writing!

References

M.J. Apter (Ed.) (2001). Motivational Styles in Everyday Life: A Guide to Reversal Theory. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association Press (*This is the ‘bible’ of RT research up to 2001*)

S. Carter (2003). Change is not what it used to be. Understanding the role of the change agent. Apter International Ltd (now Apter Development)

Introduction to Reversal Theory

Filed Under: Change Management, Reversal Theory in Business Tagged With: change, climate, complexity, culture, emotion, engagement, leadership, motivation, psychology, Reversal Theory

Lewin’s Three Step Model of Organizational Change

December 11, 2011 by robertsrobson 3 Comments

Lewin’s Three Step Model was developed in 1951 and remains influential today, having been extended by Edgar Schien (1992). Also the founder of Field Force Analysis, Lewin suggested three steps to change; unfreezing, moving and refreezing.

Unfreezing

Lewin suggested that organizations tend to maintain their equilibrium in response to disturbance, a phenomenon known as homeostasis. In order to initiate change, therefore, it is important to create momentum by increasing driving forces for change and decreasing resisting forces (cf. Field Force Analysis). Schein extended this to emphasise the need to create the motivation to change through survival anxiety (or guilt) and the psychological safety to overcome learning anxiety, which can be characterised by fears relating to incompetence, punishment, loss of identity and loss of group membership.

Moving

Taking action requires involving people and bringing them with you. For the employee, according to Schein, this means learning new concepts and reinterpreting old concepts. At this stage it is particularly important for leaders to model desired behaviours.

(Re)freezing

Refreezing (originally ‘freezing’) refers to the establishing of new ways of working as ‘normal’ in the organisation – making change stick. If this occurs, the organisation will tend to adjust itself back to this model, rather than the old. If not, it will tend to adjust itself back to the old. Among other thing, recognition and reward should be aligned to new ways of working.

Although a simple view of change, Lewin’s steps (and Schein’s elaboration) essentially underpin most organizational change today and the model appeals on the grounds of common sense. It resonates with the ideas of creating discomfort with change and the ‘burning’ platform, but also warns of the danger of celebrating success too soon, without bringing people along, as the organization may slide back into old ways.

Lewin ,K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. Harper and Row.

Schein, E. H. (1999). The corporate culture survival guide: Sense and nonsense about culture change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Filed Under: Change Management Tagged With: change, field force, learning anxiety, lewin, motivation, moving, refreezing, satfety, survival anxiety, three step model, unfreezing

Bridges’ Transitions in Change

December 9, 2011 by robertsrobson 1 Comment

Bridges (1991) emphasises the psychological transitions that employees need to make for change to be successful, rather than the change that is planned as part of the programme.

Transitions are more complex and less mechanistic than planned change, and require us to understand the emotional aspects of adapting to new ways of working. They are about ‘letting go’ of the past in order to be able to move on.

Three Phases of Transition

Initially counterintuitively, Bridges starts with ‘Endings’ and ends with ‘new Beginnings’. These phases sandwich the ‘Neutral Zone’. However, this should make sense as you read on.

Endings

Before moving on, there has to be a break with the past – an ‘Ending’. It is important for change managers and leaders to inform and appreciate who is losing what and to allow a degree of mourning – openly acknowledging these losses. There is also a symbolic aspect of endings, in that endings can be marked with some kind of event or ritual where the break from the past is recognised.

Neutral Zone

The Neutral Zone is a period of flux, where there can be conflict, anxiety and a decrease in motivation. Change managers and leaders should appreciate and communicate that this is a normal part of change and that it is OK, but at the same time create temporary structures and processes to ensure business as usual performance is maintained at the same time and change being delivered. It is important in the Neutral Zone to seek continual and honest feedback from the organisation.

New Beginning

Although the New Beginning is the aim of the change programme, it cannot be controlled. It can, however, be facilitated and encouraged by creating the right conditions. According to Bridges, for a new beginning to take place people need:

A clear purpose for changing
A picture of the new organisation after the change
A clear, step-by-step plan of how to get there
To understand their part to play in getting there.

These conditions foster the emotional commitment to change, but it may take some employees (especially further down the hierarchy) longer to get there. Leaders must be patient and appreciate this reality rather than being impatient at a perceived lag.

Filed Under: Change Management Tagged With: bridges, change, commitment, emotion, endings, neutral zone, new beginning, phases, transitions

Kotter’s Eight-Stage Process of Change

October 25, 2011 by robertsrobson 5 Comments

Organisations have always changed, but the discipline of Change Management is one that has developed over the last couple of decades, as the pace of change has increased beyond recognition. Undoubtedly one of the leading figures of this ‘new’ discipline has been John Kotter of Harvard Business School.

Kotter’s seminal HBR article, “Leading Change: Why Transformations Fail” first outlined his lessons from fifteen years of analysis, which were later developed into his Eight-Stage change framework. These eight stages have been a central influence in many of the change management methodologies used by corporates and consulting firms.

Kotter’s Eight Stage Process for Managing Change

Establishing a sense of urgency

Many people talk of creating a “burning platform”, and the need for discomfort with the

Leading Change

status quo. On the other hand, “if it ain’t broke, why fix it?”. Comfort and complacency are a barrier to change and it is imperative that change leaders establish a sense of urgency to overcome them. This isn’t easy – your leadership team might instinctively seek to “soften the blow”, or they may themselves be in the denial for the change. The urgency may not be clear enough, or undercommunicated. People might simply not care…

Creating the Guiding Coalition

Leaders cannot deliver change on their own. They need to build ‘critical mass’. Malcolm Gladwell’s “Tipping Point” provides some interesting reading on the phenomenon of ‘social epidemics’ and the importance of certain types of people. Credibility, coverage and the effectiveness of the coalition as a collective are all important.

Developing a Vision Strategy

Vision is essential, and often underdeveloped and undercommunicated during failed change. Vision is a core aspect of leaderships that creates the general direction of change, motivating (or “compelling”) people to act in that direction in a co-ordinated manner. A sound vision is, according to Kotter, Imaginable, Desirable (the attractive destination to go with the burning platform), Feasible, Focused, Flexible and Communicable.

Communicating the Change Vision

In his original article Kotter suggested that in failed change the vision is undercommunicated to the power of ten. In other words, a lot. Then do it again. Don’t just have a ‘roadshow’ with powerpoint slides, put the vision into the hands of your coalition and other leaders, in an easily communicated format. At my old consulting firm we used ‘Rich Pictures’ on the basis that ‘a picture is worth a thousand words’ – initially these were literally paintings before we moved into digital (and more interactive) formats.

Empowering Employees for Broad-Based Action

Simply put, people that feel powerless to act cannot make change happen. And you need them to help. Barriers to ‘empowerment’ (the ability of people to take responsibility) include structure, competence, processes and systems. Perhaps most of all, line managers can give or remove power from their reports. Identify those in your organisation that can have this influence (often supervisors) and target their behaviour.

Generating Short-Term Wins

One thing that I can vouch for is that as a change manager you can find that you can have to do a lot of work before anyone sees the fruits of your labour, and momentum can be easily lost. Short-term wins help provide opportunities to reinforce momentum towards change, create confidence and give cause for celebration while undermining critics. When creating your plans, consider what short-term wins might be accomplished.

Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change

I guess I’d sum this one up as “keep the ball rolling”. It may be tempting to let up at certain times, good or bad, but Kotter’s advice is to build on success by creating more change. This requires leadership to be out of the detail, providing general direction and more people contributing to the change effort at lower levels. Yes, people can become change-fatigued but that’s more to do with trying to manage multiple changes at once or because change initiatives are abandoned before the benefits can be realised. In reality, it may be best not to set out towards a fixed destination, but to make change a journey, updating the vision and keeping things moving.

Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture

This is about sustaining the change, or making it ‘sticky’. It’s easy for old ways to re-establish themselves when change is new. Kotter’s view is that it’s a mistake to try to fix the culture first, and that it should be done last. People need to see that the new ways work. Assuming they produce results, build on those with continued communication (informal as much as formal) and be prepared to reward, promote and hire based on the culture that you want to create.

Kotter’s Eight Stages in Practice

In summing up, there’s no doubt that Kotter’s Eight Stage Process has been one of the most important frameworks in shaping change management as a discipline. As always, however, it is not without its critics.

One of these is that it is described as a process, per se. You don’t necessarily move from one step to another, ticking each one off as you go. Ensure that you are constantly reviewing where you are, whether you have done enough, whether you need to go back and do more – and this becomes less of a problem, in my view.

Of course, neither is Kotter’s framework a complete change management methodology in its own right. There are more complete methodologies out there, such as Prosci, and indeed many consulting firms and corporates now have more fully developed toolkits with their own process and tools. That’s fine. If you are new to change management, you will still gain from reading Kotter’s work.

Finally, it’s easier to put down in words some guiding steps than to provide detailed instruction on how to carry them out effectively. There are, now more practical resources available that build on the original framework. Alternatively (or in parallel), combine Kotter’s framework (or others) with a good grounding in psychology to understand the human dynamics that will determine the success with which you apply these steps, and you will do so with more skill.

Filed Under: Business Psychology and Change Books, Change Management, Leadership Tagged With: 8 stage, change framework, eight stage process, kotter, leading change, methodology

People Don’t Resist Change; Organisations Create It

October 12, 2011 by robertsrobson 1 Comment

Ok. I’m going to start by backtracking a little.

Of course the world’s just not that black and white.

However, let’s look at the two points implied by my title.

People don’t resist change

Change is everywhere, all the time. People are incredibly changeable. Some of us just love it. Of course some people tend to like it less than others, and even those of us that enjoy change don’t always enjoy it. But people aren’t as inherently resistant to change as some would have us believe. Most of us just get on with it.

When we do have difficulty with change, it may be because it conflicts with our values. It may be because we’re not ready. But if either of these things are true, is it fair to label it as “resistance”?

So there’s my first point. I don’t really believe that people resist change.

Organisations create resistance to change

It’s a little bit false, if I’ve argued that people don’t really resist change, to argue that organisations create resistance.

Does your organisation rule with an iron fist?

What I really mean is that organisations, with their hierarchical structures, rules, policies, procedures, systems and other ‘hard’ sounding things, are not designed to create the conditions in which people will embrace change. They exist to control rather than liberate; to create certainty rather than uncertainty, and consistency over inconsistency.

It’s therefore not surprising that when we try to impose change on people in the environment that we’ve created, they appear to like it less than they do in other situations. Because let’s face it, people seem to dislike change less outside of work – even when it’s not ‘bottom up’ change.

So what can you do about it?

When you are thinking about embarking on change you might want to ask some of the following questions?

Do we weigh people down with targets and objectives, or do we encourage them to set their own challenges and access their creativity on a regular basis?
Are there a lot of written or unwritten rules, or heavily bureaucratic processes; or do people have the opportunity to challenge or express themselves?
Do you control your employees, do you micromanage and hold onto responsibility; or do you encourage them to take responsibility, delegating decisions and supporting development?

As I said at the beginning, the world isn’t black and white, but if you recognise the first half of each of these questions more than the second, then you might well find people tend to “resist” change where you work.

Filed Under: Change Management Tagged With: change, control, environment, objectives, organisations, people, resistance, rules, structure

‘Energizing’ Change Leadership

October 3, 2011 by robertsrobson 2 Comments

In a recent HBR Blog, Rosabeth Moss Kanter described energy as a neglected dimension of leadership. Energy keeps things moving, attracting and infecting others. Energisers can be summed up as responsive optimists. They are not naïve, however; nor do they ignore the negative. They have an ability to take in and deal with negative information and be a positive influence on others.

Credit - Clipartpal.com

Kanter describes three tips for becoming an Energizer:

A relentless focus on the bright side. (Seeing the best in things and others, if you like)
Redefining negatives as positives (Always look on the bright side of life, as Monty Python would say)
Fast response time. Energizers don’t dawdle. (Responding quickly to things, even if only a partial response, maintains energy)

If you spend time around change programmes, you’ll hear a lot about how difficult it is going to be. You’ll hear about the barriers and how hard they’ll be to overcome; the potential blockers and how hard they’ll be to win over; the things that aren’t being addressed and why the change will fail as a result.

Change Management itself can be a source of negative thinking. The change curve for example, taken from Kubler-Ross’s (1969) work On Death and Dying takes grief as the metaphor for change. Sure, sometimes people experience loss as a result of change, but it’s just as possible for people to experience change as liberating or exciting.

That’s all fine. Change is hard work. It can make people feel bad. It’s all useful information and you have to deal with barriers, blockers and negative reactions to change. Change Leaders, however, should note Kanter’s advice and stay focused on creating energy by being a source of optimism. It’s certainly something I’ll be keeping in mind.

Filed Under: Change Management, Leadership Tagged With: Change Leadership, energy, optimism

When is a Change a Transformation?

October 2, 2011 by robertsrobson 3 Comments

Transformation. What does it mean, and what makes it different from plain old Change?

For implication of the name is that an organisation becomes something entirely different to how it started the process. Like a child that becomes an adult; a cocoon that becomes a butterfly; a peaceful, calm sea that becomes a destructive tsunami. Not to suggest that a media company should become a utility, or an insurance company a retailer, but the word “transformation” is used a lot – maybe over used in business and, as a result, less meaningful. Like telling a girl you love her on your first date.

We’ve seen it with other words. Everyone’s a consultant too. A posh hairdresser, the person that sells you your holiday or car – in my first roles as a “management consultant” I was writing code for systems implementations.

Putting new systems in isn’t a transformation, is it? Even if your processes change as a result and the organisation has to be restructured to fit. Surely a transformation means that something fundamental about your business, and the way it does business, changes – not just more this, less that. Not just changing something distinct and relatively isolated within your operation – a particular process, for example, for as radical as it may be, transformation also implies a certain level of coverage. A shift in strategic focus, a new way of looking at things, a need to compete in a fundamentally changing market. Out with the old, in with the new. New brooms and all that. Not necessarily that we’re not doing insurance or media or utilities anymore, but things are definitely not going to be the same around here.

Funnily enough I started a new role this week, and despite the fact that the change that I’m managing is a big change in direction, I haven’t heard the word “transformation” being used yet.

What’s your experience? How would you define transformation versus change? Does it matter?

Filed Under: Change Management Tagged With: change, definition, transformation

Winning Hearts and Minds

September 21, 2011 by robertsrobson 3 Comments

In any change there are many reasons why people might feel good or bad about what’s going on, and as change managers if we can find the right ‘buttons’ we can press them. That’s really what we mean by winning hearts and minds.

“What’s in it for me?” (or WIIFM?) is a valid question but without a solid framework for understanding employees’ motivational and emotional world, the answers will tend to be limited to the obvious, more rational ones. Minds, more than hearts.

Image Credit: JohnLeskodotbiz

Consider the following hypothetical WIIFMs:

The sense of achievement from seeing the change through
The excitement and sense of adventure of doing something new
A sense of belonging from being part of a new organisation
A chance to break from the bureaucracy and make more decisions
The opportunity to learn and develop my career
Feeling like the organisation caters more for me and my needs
The change to build a more competitive business
The opportunity to do something for the greater good

Whether you recognise these as valid reasons for a particular change or not, the important point is that they are motivationally different as they reflect the eight motivational states or ‘lenses’ through which we can see change that are provided by Reversal Theory (Apter). These states (and corresponding values are):

Serious (Achievement)
Playful (Enjoyment)
Conforming (Fitting In)
Rebellious (Freedom)
Self-Oriented Mastery (Personal Power)
Self-Oriented Sympathy (Cared for)
Other-Oriented Mastery (Support for Others)
Other-Oriented Sympathy (Care for others)

If, in future, you are trying to understand the WIIFM of people in your organisation, see if you can put on the lenses above and see eight different reasons why they might embrace change!

Filed Under: Change Management Tagged With: change, emotion, hearts and minds, motivation, psychology, Reversal Theory, WIIFM

New Vocabulary or Better Relationships?

September 19, 2011 by robertsrobson 7 Comments

Andrew Campbell argues, in the HBR Blog, that a primary reason for dysfunctional organisations is the language that we use. We need to use more explicit language than “line”, “dotted line” and “team” to describe relationships, and we will function better.

He suggests that seven types of relationship exist:

Boss / subordinate
Customer / supplier
Policy / operator
Lobby / operator
Managed team
Business partner
No-walk-away collaboration

I’m all for more explicit and clear language. I also believe that language can be very powerful in creating performance and change. Putting aside the observation that some of these are in use, perhaps the real problem is that the language we use at work is a reflection of the organisation that we belong to, which is likely to be cold, sterile, formal and (still, in many cases) hierarchical.

Perhaps this, rather than a lack of clear terminology, is why many organisations fail to create the effective relationships to mobilise effectively to create change and performance?

Filed Under: Change Management Tagged With: change, relationships