Uncommon Sense Scrutiny: Thinking about... Change

"Removing Inertia’s Tyranny by engineering human resource Synergy"

The Nature of Inertia

Any system, whether it be technological, biological or social, has inertia – the tendency to maintain it’s current state. But inertia is not necessarily an enemy; in many respects, it is an ally. When inertia is so strong that it is the immovable object upon which change agents attempt to impose an irresistible force, the likely result is either conflict or a stand-off. We must recognize that this interplay of forces exists wherever there is complexity – and develop strategies that either allow inertia to continue, or  stop it in it’s tracks.

For the most part, people like the security of predictability, and for good reason – predictability is safe and the majority of people will seek out safety at every opportunity. The question that people should ask, however, is “What constitutes safety?”.  In many cases, apparent safety can be complacency and lead to an organisation or an individual’s demise.  Many business ‘traditions’ are ‘safe’ in the sense that they are ‘tried and tested’ until someone comes along with an innovation that renders them ineffectual. 

If we regard the aspects of the system that at any point in time are maintaining their status quo as static, and the parts that are changing as dynamic, we will recognise that it is senseless to change everything at the same time.  This is tantamount to anarchy; what is necessary is a balance where the initiatives undertaken at any point in time are focused on the organisation’s limiting factor or constraint, while the rest remains static. This simple idea, that of subjugation of the subsystem to the overall organisation limiting factor, maintains the focus for everyone – there is clarity on what the intended benefit is and every part understands how it contributes to the big picture. We have then gone some way to giving the parts incentive to behave in the interests of the whole. 

Besides - if you’re trying to improve everything at the same time, how do you measure the improvements? How do you isolate the benefits of each particular initiative? How do you know any of the initiatives worked? The ‘shotgun’ approach also gives rise to a coordination problem - aligning all of the initiatives becomes more complex, and in most cases overlaps lead to duplication of effort as well as trade-offs because the initiatives are working at cross-purposes. If the organisation is static where it should be dynamic and vice versa, it is unlikely that it’s  performance as a whole will improve. 

Complexity: The Human Element

Biological organisms are the most efficient form of organisation. Within the organs and cells is an astonishing network of stimuli and responses constantly adapting to the organism’s current circumstances. A machine behaves deterministically – it does the same thing repetitively and efficiently but cannot make any adaptations to it’s environment. An organisation, because it contains something called the human element, is a complex system with adaptive capabilities, but it also has something else – each human’s behaviour, because each makes independent choices, is independently variable, making the human factor the most unpredictable of all the factors that an organisation must take into account. 

Why then do change agents spend so little time developing and implementing strategies for ensuring that the most complex element of any change initiative is carefully thought through?

Perhaps they, too, are trapped on the “Iceberg of Inertia” 

Icebergs have inertia. Plenty of it. And if you want to change the path of an iceberg, you’d hardly direct your efforts at the surface. You’d have more success below the surface.

What we see on the surface, the tip of the iceberg, is ‘behaviour’, the ‘things people do’.  Historically, we had ‘carrot and stick’ strategies for altering human behaviour. These were directed at the surface of the human dynamic – it is not surprising that they had such short-term results. Sustainable change must address the elements we see under the surface:

1.      Attitude:  Predisposition towards a person, thing, value, belief

2.      Value: Relative worth or importance of an event, thing, person

3.      Belief: Assertion of a reality state without proof

4.      Assumption: Something taken for granted; Supposition

5.      Drive: Inner, instinctive need

The relationships between these elements are complex: An attitude may result from an underlying belief which in turn may be derived from a set of assumptions about reality. A belief may be in conflict with a value, which in many cases is adopted without thinking about the belief one is upholding by regarding the person or event as valuable.  Some beliefs are assumed while others are adopted on the basis of either a propensity of probabilities or perhaps an association with a person that is valued.  While it is unlikely that a person’s basic drives can be altered, values and beliefs can and do change in response to stimuli.

It will suffice for the purposes of this exercise to recognise that it is understanding of these aspects of the human dynamic with reference to the envisaged change that will prepare the way for successful change.  

Engineering Human Resource Synergy

What do we mean by Synergy? A useful definition could be “The optimisation of interdependence” No single resource, process or department can deliver improvements on it’s own – what is required is the collaboration and coordination of all those who have an interest in the proposed outcome. A simple way of putting it is that we must get the parts to behave in the interest of the whole.  

How can we ensure that this occurs? 

Firstly, we must cease to think of the change implementation and ‘change management’ as separate processes. They should be so well integrated that they work seamlessly, so that an observer would have difficulty identifying which activities were about the change and which ones were about the people, so that eventually it becomes invisible because it is built into the organisation’s culture. It’s the way in which we go about change that differentiates this approach: 

Change Management is the process by which the contribution of the stakeholders is ensured by…

1.      Understanding their:

current fears and reservations

underlying assumptions and beliefs that impact their decisions and actions

 2.      Getting stakeholders to understand:

the intent (potential impact) of the envisaged change

their role in delivering the benefits of change

3.      Gaining their commitment:

to put their energy into the change

to identify potential or existent obstacles and develop contingencies for them

4.      Involving stakeholders:

in the design of the solution

in the implementation of the change

in the continuous improvement thought processes 

Sustainable Change…

Changing the mindset of the organisation by changing the mindset of the people in the organisation

The Process Elements (in no particular order)

1.      The Reason Why

Understanding the reason why change is necessary is crucial to the change process, and it is here that the change management process starts – involving people in defining the reason why. Which people should be involved? Conventional wisdom says those who are impacted by the change and those who will bring it about, but in many cases there is a departmental focus in change initiatives; a process-oriented organisation will easier be able to identify how functional disciplines contribute interdependently to organisational objectives.

a.     Why should we change?

The fact that there is an intention to change something means that there must be dissatisfaction with the status quo. If not, why bother? What are the effects that tell us that improvement is necessary?

In many cases, the protagonists of change are remote enough from operations not to understand the real problems – failure to listen to the people at the coalface is the most common cause of change initiative failure. It’s at this point that inertia can protect the organisation from poor investments by resisting the new and asking for evidence that there is something worth improving.

b.     What is the current Limiting Factor?

If time, money and energy are going to be invested, the only way real benefits are going to result is if they are focused on the organisation’s limiting factor.

Change for the sake of change, the implementation of the ‘Flavour of the Day’ and  ‘Best Practices’ often lead to wasted time and money – and no ROI.

c.     What are it’s Root Causes?

Unless there is a diligent analysis which leads to a clear definition of the limiting factor’s causes, chances are that the ‘solution’ will be ‘half-baked’

If the organisation engages people’s minds in defining the real problems, real solutions can be developed. Too often, root cause analysis is not conducted in a structured manner with all of the people who have insight into the workings of the focus area.

d.     What are the Intended benefits of the envisaged change?

Any change must obviate or reduce the effects of a limiting factor – these improvements must affect the organisation as a whole and result in recognizable benefits.

In many cases, benefits claimed are not organisational benefits but subsystem improvement which will only be of benefit to the whole if interdependence is coordinated.

e.     What obstacles exist to the successful implementation of the change? What contingencies must we prepare for?

The smooth road to improvement is a fiction – there are inevitably bumps in the road for which plans should be created.

Few change agents are willing to solicit obstacles, get people’s reservations with regard to intended initiatives, because they don’t want to give people the opportunity to create problems.

2.      Below the surface

a.     What do people believe about the intention of the initiative? What are their underlying assumptions?

In many cases, the appearance of consultants at an organisation is a source of insecurity or conflict. The downsizing that has occurred has contributed to this mindset, and people are very clear on what consultants cost. Often the people develop their own ideas concerning the intent of the consulting team – trust may be a huge initial problem. From the perspective of the organisation-as-organism, the consultants are regarded as “Not us” – they are outsiders who must earn the trust and respect of the people. One way to do this is to listen to their fears and reservations and, wherever necessary, settle their anxieties.

b.     Are there conflicts that have not been resolved or underground conflicts of which there may be limited awareness?

Conflicts go underground when people are not listened to or where a legislative style has been adopted; Some people think that silence is agreement whereas it may be condescension. 

3.     Consensus: Getting the people on board…

a.     Getting Consensus:

                         i.      On the objectives; Agreement that they are achievable

                         ii.      On the activities: Agreement that they will result in the objectives

                         iii.   On their respective roles: Agreement (active!) with regard to committed time and energy

b.     An environment of trust and support exists:

                        i.   Relationships within team are healthy and any last obstacles are cleared

                        ii.  Employees trust that they could freely raise concerns during the Implementation phase

                       iii.  Management trust employees’ decisions

                       iv.  Employees are allowed to make mistakes

                       v.   Employees receive the necessary training

                        vi. Employees have the necessary tools in place

4.      Continuity: …and keeping them there (COMPASS)

a.      Communication

                          i.      Remain focused on the end goal

                         ii.      Reinforce importance of change

                          iii.      Listen listen listen

                         iv.      Be approachable

                          v.      Respect opinions

                         vi.      Give constructive feedback

b.     Obstacles

                           i.      Human behaviour

                          ii.      Changes not predicted or allowed for

                          iii.      Perception Management

c.     Measure Outcomes

                           i.      Measure the outcomes that were identified when the objectives were set

                           ii.      Provide feedback on meeting the outcomes

d.     Participation

                           i.    All team members should participate in the change and the continuous improvement effort

                           ii.      Reconfirm expectations of each team member

                           iii.      Focus on the outcome of the whole – do not create a predatory environment where in order to win, a peer must loose

e.     Achievements

                            i.      Give credit where credit is due – but be careful of creating heroes, isolating people from the team

                           ii.      Acknowledge successes – achievements of milestones, suggesting new ideas, pro-actively identifying potential obstacles, etc.

f.        Support

                             i.      Provide team with the required tools

                             ii.      Provide the team with the required training

                             iii.      Be approachable

                            iv.      Tolerate mistakes and provide guidance

                             v.      Share Knowledge

                             vi.   Provide team with the opportunity to share their knowledge and experiences

Download a Powerpoint presentation giving a step-by-step overview of this change management process: Changes.zip

D (just call me D)

justd@justd.ws

© Uncommon Sense Communication - Enabling Independent Thought