|
There is no point discussing any topic until we define our terms. So? In
the simplest terms possible, what is this thing we've labeled 'change'
which we find so difficult to implement?
'Change' must sometimes really be something huge and
terrible if it can cause huge organizations to fail.
It must be something deeply personal
if the death of a loved one can cause such deep hopeless despair.
It must sometimes be extremely intractable if
some people believe places like Northern Ireland and the Middle East can never
change.
All of the above, from corporate boardroom worries, to deep personal woes
and then onto the really big problems of the world… are examples of this
category we've labeled with the tiny single syllable 'Change'.
What is it? Here's the simplest definition I can think of:
Change
happens when something
moves from one situation,
to
another.
Does this simple definition cover the three very different examples
mentioned above?
-
Corporations must change to adapt to shifts in the market place.
They must also manage those Changes efficiently and effectively. In
addition, Corporations must not attempt to implement every possible Change; otherwise they'll never reap the benefits of a stable
environment.
-
The death of anyone close to us is a huge change to our lives. The loss of
a loved one forces us into a new situation. It leaves a gaping hole in our
lives that takes time to heal.
-
The situations in the trouble spots of the world seem impossible to
overcome. We seem incapable of moving out of historical cycles of
violence. It's as if we're trapped inside a self sustaining vortex of
hatred. We cannot move from the old situations of hate and war to those of tolerance and peace.
Despite its simplicity, the definition seems capable of covering all of
these very different situations involving this thing called 'change'. We
could embellish it somewhat, but for the moment let's leave things as
simple as possible.
So
What Exactly is the Problem?
How can this…
Change
happens when something
moves from one situation,
to
another.
…possibly cause us so much grief?
The
simple answer is 'Inertia'… It seems there was this scientist chappie by
the name of Sir Isaac Newton who lived in the 17th century. He proposed a
series of three laws which describe how objects move, or don't move, as
the case may be. These laws are now known as Newton's laws of motion.
Newton's
First Law of Motion:
The Law of Inertia.
An object at rest tends to stay at rest,
and an object in motion tends to stay in motion
with the same speed and in the same direction
unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
Now, using a law from the realm of physics might seem a bit unusual when
discussing Change Management, but not to use a metaphor which
describes the situation almost perfectly would be criminal. So... I'm going
to be a bit presumptuous and restate the law just a little bit, to bring
it more in line with the topic at hand.
de
Jager's First Law of Change:
The Law of Inertia.
People in one situation,
tend to stay in that situation,
unless they have a reason to Change.
Simply put? Moving from one situation to another requires effort, it
doesn't just happen.
Of course, this doesn't describe how much effort is required. It just
recognizes an obvious fact, that some
effort is required. So far this metaphor makes no attempt to explain why it can be
so incredibly difficult to get people to move from one situation to
another.
Well, Sir Isaac Newton had three laws, not just one. Since the first one
worked so well, let's take a look at the other two. His next contribution
to the field of physics was this; his second law of motion:
Newton's
Second Law of Motion:
The Law of Acceleration
The
acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly
proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as
the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object.
That's a mouthful. Basically it says the more massive the object, the more
force you have to apply to move it. Taking even more liberties this time,
(sorry Sir Isaac,) I'll liberally restate it with an eye towards Change Management.
de
Jager's Second Law of Change:
The Law of the Status Quo
The more people have invested in the past,
the more difficult it is for them
to Change into the future.
This time the translation of Sir Issac's phrasing to Change Management requires some
explanation.
Newton's' first law is nothing more than the observation that the notion
of 'cause and effect' has meaning. Things don't just happen. If an object
isn't moving, there must be a reason for it to start moving. Rocks, for
example, don't just start rolling around for no reason; something must give them a push. The energy necessary for movement
must come from somewhere.
Likewise, people don't just quit their jobs, get married, upgrade their
accounting systems etc. without having some reason, however trivial it might
appear. We do not act randomly, we need, nay! we demand! a reason before
we Change.
Newton's' second law goes a bit further. It recognizes there is a
relationship between the amount of force required to move an object at a
certain speed, and it's mass.
When we translate this to Change Management, we associate 'mass' with the
amount of 'stuff' that we must leave behind when moving to the new
situation. This 'stuff' is everything we've invested in, everything we're
good at, everything we
leave behind, whether it is the ability to use an accounting system, the
location where we live, the relationship with a loved one. etc.
Sir Isaac had one more law up his sleeve, his third law of motion. This
one is so well known, it doesn't even have a subtitle like the others:
Newton's
Third Law of Motion:
For
every action,
there
is an equal and opposite reaction.
Translating this to Change Management we have the following: (Since it's
not so well known, we'll give it a subtitle)
de
Jager's Third Law of Change:
The Law of Resistance.
When we try to change people,
they'll resist.
The justification behind this translation is simply this, people do not
passively move forward to a new situation. If you push them towards
something new, they will naturally push back. They 'push back' by wanting
to know 'why' the Change is necessary. To expect people to Change without
a valid reason, is like expecting rocks to roll merely because we want
them to.
There's a key learning here, something we'll come back to again and again,
it is:
This is not what most managers responsible for implementing a Change
want to hear. What management usually wants to hear is that people who
resist change are the problem, and there are more than enough books on the
market that will reinforce the idea that...
Imagine for the moment we've figured out a way to erase all resistance to
Change with the wave of a magic wand.
Someone comes into our office and tells us that if we stopped using all
our computerized accounting systems, and went back to a totally manual
process, we could save a lot of money.
Without our inherent natural tendency to
resist Change, we'd immediately follow their advice. We'd have no
choice. We'd toss out the accounting systems and hire several hundred
accountants and purchase an ample supply of pen and paper. We'd be
bankrupt within a month.
Too contrived an example? Let's look at something less drastic.
This same person comes into our office and tells us that upgrading our
accounting system will save us a lot of money. Without our natural resistance
to Change, we'd follow his direction and upgrade. By the way? He was the
salesperson for the company who sold us the accounting system in the
first place. What a coincidence.
Is blind acceptance of Change really what we want in our
organizations?
These types of scenarios play out every day, in every company around the
world. Without a strong, well entrenched natural tendency to resist Change, we'd
be at the mercy of anyone with a product or idea to sell.
Even wild
ideas like the one I’m trying to sell you… "Resistance is not
only natural, it's good and necessary."
I do not expect you to accept this without thinking about it. I don't
expect you to accept it just because I say so... I expect questions, I
expect that you'll think about the examples given come to your own
conclusion. i.e. I expect and hope that you will recognize that by
'resisting' this idea that 'resistance is natural' that you'll notice that
there is nothing wrong with questioning the validity of any proposed
change... and that applies to your staff as well, when they ask...
"Why should we Change?"
Whenever we're presented with a possible change, we're faced with a choice
between staying where we are and moving to somewhere else. It does not
seem logical to automatically move, just because a choice is presented to
us.
It seems reasonable to compare the two choices, "here" vs.
"there", and ask ourselves if moving makes sense. It is natural
to ask for information to help us decide between "here" and
"There". "Resistance" is what happens when it doesn’t make sense for us
to move.
In the first proposal to throw out the accounting system, it was blindingly obvious to everyone, that resorting to manual processes is a
bizarre idea. It is immediately rejected and I don't think you could find
any business manager anywhere, who would suggest that resisting such a
suggestion is the wrong thing to do. We'd all agree that
"resistance" in this specific, grossly exaggerated, circumstance
is a "good" thing.
It's not only "good", it's necessary.
The other situation is not so clear cut. In some circumstances upgrading
the system is the correct business decision, but in other situations? Upgrading is the
wrong choice. The decision to upgrade depends greatly on the circumstances surrounding the
issue. To decide properly we need information. To get
information we must ask "Why should we Change?"
Here's an important question… When someone resists the move to upgrade
do you think of them as; "blocking the progress of the company"
or are they "protecting the processes that made us successful"? Is "resistance to Change" in this case a
good or bad thing?
Stated more generally, do we perceive people who resist change as
"obstacles to progress", or as "protectors of what is valuable
in the past"?
If
we see all resistance as "obstacles to progress" then we'll
manage with a heavy hand, i.e. "my way or the highway". We'll
see every "Why should we Change?" as a direct challenge to our
right to "Manage". We'll steer the direction of our organization
by giving orders rather than creating an esprit de corps.
If we see
resistance as "protecting the processed that made us
successful", then we'll know that our role is to explain why the
change is necessary. We see every "Why should we Change?" as
nothing more than a desire to understand why the Change is necessary.
We'll steer the organization by getting the input and advice of those
closest to the problems which need fixing.
Sir Isaac did not have people in mind when he formulated his
Laws of Motion, but the notion that things need a reason to move is as
applicable to people as it is to rocks.
© 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.
|
