The Three Shades of Change
Peter de Jager is a provocative Speaker, Writer and Consultant. His primary focus in on how we manage change, technology and the future.
In addition to speaking at conferences worldwide, he also writes monthly columns for CIO Magazine and Computerworld Canada.
His goal is always to question what we think is so, and in so doing perhaps open up new opportunities.
If you'd like permission to reprint any of Peter's articles, please contact him directly.
You can contact him at
pdejager@technobility.com
Or sign the Guest Book and he'll get back to you.
"What type of Change are you trying to implement?" To most people that's a nonsensical question. A typical response is, "Type? What do you mean 'Type of change?' We're implementing a Change! Change is Change!" Or, they might have some sense that they can distinguish different types of Change. Some changes are "easy", others are "difficult"... this is an "organizational change", while that one is a "Technological change".
There are fundamental problems with distinctions of easy vs. difficult, and technological vs. organizational. They either fail to cover the entire spectrum of possible changes or the lines separating the categories are too fuzzy.
At what point along the spectrum does a Change project shift from "easy" to "difficult"? Where do we place the Change "Learning to play the bagpipes"? Organizational? Technological? Or do we need another category? Painful?
Another failing is that the distinction between one category and another doesn't provide us any benefit. How is "organizational" Change fundamentally different from "Technological" Change? Unless the scheme we use adds value to the process, it only adds confusion. What is required is a division which makes "sense". Usually, after such a scheme is proposed, the reader responds with, "Of course! Why didn't I think of that? It's obvious!"
Perhaps worse than choosing inappropriate categories, is using no categories. This strategy leads to confusing assertions such as "People resist Change", spoken by people who have willingly embraced huge personal changes; gotten married, had children, moved house, learned a second language etc. etc. By continuing to think of Change as "one thing" they ignore the consequent contradictions.
There is a way to split Change up into three distinct and useful categories. Consider the following division based on the "source" of the Change relative to us as individuals:
Type I - That which is done to us.
Type II - That which we do to ourselves.
Type III - That which we do to others.
(Note: These could be broken down further into sub-categories. These deserve a discussion all of their own and will be the subject of future essays.)
As a rule nobody likes Type I Change. We hate being told what to do. Why? Because it interferes with our definition of "self", it violates our sense of independence, freedom and control of our own destiny. This is the type of Change we're most likely to resist within the context of organizational Change.
Type II Change is different, very different. We're in control. We're deciding for ourselves that doing something different is necessary. Because it's our decision, we don't "resist" our decision to Change. This does not mean Type II Change is easy. Learning to play those bagpipes or to speak Chinese, losing weight, moving to a new city, starting a new job or position, are all difficult tasks, but we don't resist them in the same way we resist when someone else tells us we have to do these things.
Type III Change is Type I Change from the other side of the fence. If we're inflicting Type III Change, then they perceive it as Type I Change.
Relocating the Factory:
Let's assume Management has decided, for a variety of reasons, to relocate the factory. This Change falls into all three categories depending on who's looking at the relocation.
For Management, the relocation is obviously a Type II Change. It's their idea, they're in control. While relocating is difficult, it's something they've embraced by deciding it is necessary. Coping with this self inflicted Change is relatively easy.
For Management, it's also a Type III Change. It is one they are going to inflict on their employees. Inflicting Change is different than coping with it.
And for the Employees, this is a Type I Change. Change is forced on them by someone else.
Where we typically make our mistake as management, and where Change becomes difficult, is we assume that because this is a Type II Change for us, it's a Type II Change for everyone else.
Unless we take into account how we react to Type I Change and accept that our employees see this as a Type I Change, then the relocation will be unnecessarily difficult.
Cheers
Peter de Jager
905-792-8706
© 2005,
Peter de Jager – Peter is passionate about change, how it affects both
individuals and organizations and allows them to grow and prosper. To contact him, and
host internal seminars on Change Management visit www.technobility.com
For
reprint permissions click here.
Resources: