The Tactics of Scaling Change Management
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's also written monthly columns for Municipal World and Computing 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.
The process by which we decide “it is necessary to change” doesn’t change much from one person to another. While that might sound like an outrageous claim, it really doesn’t do more than state the obvious.
For the purpose of this article we’ll restrict the discussion to the Change motivated by a desire to avoid an unpleasant outcome. That covers a wide range of scenarios ranging from implementing a new accounting system, acquiring some level of quality certification, or merging with another company.
At the beginning, the need to change is perceived by a small circle of individuals, possibly just one person. How this happens is important, as it serves as the seed from which we cultivate organizational commitment to change. Here’s our built in, instinctual process;
1) we become aware of something(1),
2) we ask ourselves, “If I ignore this… what happens?
(2)
3) we evaluate our prediction(3) , “Is this good or bad for me?”
4) if we determine it is “good for us”, then we
don’t do anything differently, we go about our
merry way.
More to the point, we will resist any imposed response because we’ve determined
for ourselves that no action is necessary.
5) if we determine it is “bad for us”, then we will have arrived at the conclusion that a change
is
necessary. We’re not necessarily certain at this point what needs be done, but we’ve determined
that something needs doing.
6) we now determine what we could
do(4) , we create a list of possible responses.
7) we sift through these choices, to the best of our analytical
ability(5) , with the intent of zeroing in
on a single response to the perceived threat.
8) we move ahead to implement(6) our response to the threat, the thing we became aware of
in #1 above.
(1) Becoming aware of a threat is perhaps the most difficult task to accomplish.
(2) Our ability to predict out into the future, with any degree of reliability, is suspect at best.
(3) Our “evaluations” differ because our values invariably differ.
(4) Answering ‘What could we do?” requires expertise, a less than narrow scope of knowledge,
and a deep understanding of available resources and an ability to evaluate risk.
(5) Deciding between choices demands both expertise and objectivity. These differ from one
person to another.
(6) Implementing a change is different from determining a change is necessary. Something often
forgotten in the heat of battle.
We can, for the want of a name, label this as ‘Baseline’ or
‘0th Order’ change. It is how we decide for ourselves that a change is necessary.
At this point we are faced with two distinctly different courses of action. The most commonly used strategy is to try and roll out the change that we’ve determined is necessary. This is commonly defined as the “buy-in” strategy, where we attempt to get others to follow the solutions we’ve come up with as a result of our analysis of the threat and possible responses. Without going into the details of why this strategy is ‘difficult’ and prone to failure (See the article:
“All Sold out of
“Buy-In” for an analysis of this strategy. ) we’ll move onto a totally different approach.
This strategy accepts the reality that the size of our audience will dictate our tactics. For the sake of this discussion we’ll break the audience sizes into three categories…
1st Order Change: less than 100 people
2nd Order Change: between 100 and 1000 people
3rd Order Change: more than 1000 people
When attempting to bring about change of the 1st Order we do most everything we did in 0th Order change. We follow the process from Step #1 to Step #7 and then come to a screeching halt. We do NOT move to Step #8. Step #8 in this context takes us into the zone of “Buy-In”… we don’t want to got there.
With all the knowledge we’ve acquired in steps #1-7, we start a similar, but distinctly different process…
a) we go to our audience and make them aware of the “something” we originally became aware
of in #1 above.
b) we ask them, “If we ignore this… what happens?
c) we ask them, “Is this good or bad for us?”
d) if they determine it is “good for us”, then they
won’t do anything differently, they will go about
their merry way. More to the point, they will resist
any imposed response because they’ve
determined for themselves that no action is necessary.
**Note** This is the first point of ‘risk’ in this strategy. Will they come to the same conclusion we did in our analysis? That doing nothing is not an option? That depends on two considerations i) the assumption is, that the threat we’re responding to, is real. And ii) that we, management usually, are facilitating the discussion with some skill. We’re making all the relevant information freely available, that we’re building rapport and trust, that we’re not ‘forcing’ the debating.
e) if they determine it is “bad for us”, then they will have arrived at the conclusion that a change
is necessary. They’re not necessarily certain at this point what needs be done, but they’ve
determined that something needs doing.
f) We then ask them what they think we should do as a response to this threat. They now
determine what they could do, they create a list of possible responses.
The key step to getting ‘involvement’ and ‘participation’ in Change… is asking them.
g) we sift through these choices, to the best of our analytical ability , with the intent of zeroing in
on a single response to the perceived threat.
**Note** This is the
second point of ‘risk’ in this strategy… There are three possible outcomes
to their analysis.
a. Their solution will match your solution 100%. This is rare. It is unlikely in the extreme
that two solutions, obtained by different teams, will match exactly. If this does happen
I would suggest that management has ‘steered’ the discussion with too firm a hand.
b. Also unlikely, but more possible, is that the two solutions will have nothing in common.
This is not necessarily bad… if the two solutions both solve the problem then there is
likely a lot to be learnt by comparing them.
c. They most likely outcome is that their solution overlaps the original solution to some
degree. Management’s challenge is this… how necessary is it that the solution they
chose matches the management solution found in Step #7 exactly?
Here’s the danger… the more management insists that the solution to be implemented matches
the original management solution exactly, then the less the audience feels a sense of ownership…
ie. We’re slipping back into the zone of ‘Buy-in’.
The whole purpose of this strategy is to create an environment where the change selected for implementation is not enforced/dictated by management, but chosen and owned by the target audience.
For the 2nd Order of change, the process is almost the same, but takes into account that it is impractical to have 100+ people heavily involved in analysis and consensus building. Not impossible, just time consuming.
1) we go to our audience and make them aware of the “something” we originally became aware
of in #1 above.
2) we ask them, “If we ignore this… what happens?
3) we ask them, “Is this good or bad for us?”
4) if they determine it is “good for us”, then they won’t do anything differently, they will go
about their merry way. More to the point, they will resist any imposed response because
they’ve determined for themselves that no action is necessary.
**Note** Same point as earlier… the threat must be real.
5) if they determine it is “bad for us”, then they will have arrived at the conclusion that a change
is necessary. They’re not necessarily certain at this point what needs be done, but they’ve
determined that something needs doing.
With the understanding that a change is necessary, the process can move ahead as it did in
1st Order Change with the exception that not everyone is involved. That representatives
of the audience will work together to plot possible courses of action and select a final solution.
3rd Order Change again takes the audience size into account. Once again though, management does not act alone. Management first goes through
0th Order Change on their own, they then select a subset of the larger audience and move them through either the
1st or 2nd Order process. What differs is the addition of a final process – The ‘Communication’ of what has been going on behind the scenes.
Where this approach differs most from the “Buy-in” strategy is the focus on why the change is necessary rather than on what is going to change.
1) we explain the threat that came to our attention
2) we explain how we arrived at our prediction(s) of the consequences
3) we explain how we evaluated these predictions as being undesirable
4) we list all the alternatives we considered
5) we explain why we rejected various alternatives
6) we describe in some detail the short list of possibilities
7) we explain why we selected the final solution
**Note** throughout all off the above, it is not just upper management making
the presentation… various people from the audience who were part of the joint
decision making process are explaining their involvement and how they we part of
the decision making.
Key to all of this is answering the question “Why is this necessary”. All the extra details about how alternatives where considered and then discarded provide information to answer the unasked question, “Do they know what they’re doing?”
The goal is total transparency of the decision making process.
Any Change can, and will be embraced if the audience understands why it is necessary. This approach focuses on that child’s question… why?
© 2006 Peter de Jager – Yes, he's a speaker with a passion for Change. You can contact him at pdejager@technobility.com
For
reprint permissions click here.
I'd appreciate reading your comments
regarding this article... please take the time to respond.
Resources: