LEADING THOUGHTS

Here is a nice six-minute story from Fabienne Munch, Director of Ideation at Herman Miller, about how she transformed and energized her 15-member team in the space of five months.

Stealing an idea from Google’s playbook, Munch gave members of her team $5,000 each to pursue an idea of their choice. There were three conditions: the project had to relate to Herman Miller’s mission; the staffers had to invite an outsider to participate; and they had to be open to the idea of pooling resources with their colleagues. At the five-minute mark, Munch talks about what happened next.

In the final two minutes, Munch talks about workplace trends that are informing how Herman Miller is designing work spaces.

You know the statistic: planned, management-implemented change processes suffer a failure rate of more than 70 percent. Why do change projects fail at such an alarming rate? Resistance to change, the role of the change manager in managing the process, a lack of participation due to top-down steering, organizational culture, the relevance of the goals of change. . . you name it.

Renate A. Werkman (Wageningen U) set out to identify generalized patterns of change in both private and public sector organizations, and to explain variations in those patterns. As a basis, Werkman used widely acknowledged characteristics of the change management process, trying to find interrelations and linking them to the context of the change project. Data were obtained from managing directors, line managers, staff members, employees, and consultants from 367 organizations differing in size, sector, and the type of change process.

Werkman found that there are five patterns among changing organizations, each with their own specific problems, characteristics, and change approaches that require different interventions. Here they are:

Innovative pattern. The most successful pattern shows that “a pleasant culture and leadership and pleasant work characteristics provide important conditions for the success of organizational change.” Change managers here pay attention to a thorough process management, providing clear goals, stimulating employees to participate, and refraining from using power. Found in: smaller, knowledge-intensive, industrial, and food-related companies.

Systematical pattern. “Employees are quite positive about organizational characteristics but there is some control orientation and political behavior.” Change managers here do not consider unilateral and participative approaches to be mutually exclusive, and they pay attention to the process of change. Found in: medium-sized organizations in the financial industry, regional and local governments, and healthcare organizations.

Unclear change process pattern. “Employees evaluate organizational characteristics rather positively, but they experience a lack of clarity about the ultimate purpose of the change process.” Restricted exchange of information and ideas generates limited support for change but change processes do not evoke tensions. “Either people just do not have a clue where to contribute, they trust change managers with the process or they are just not interested.” Found in: relatively small organizations in the IT sector and the service industry; can also be found in public sector organizations that are specifically working on development and innovation.

Skeptical pattern. Combines low change capacity with moderately high control orientation. “The large organizations here are characterized by mechanistic structures and bureaucratic control. . . There is little opportunity for interaction and the exchange of ideas in this pattern and therefore for participative strategies.” Found in: large government organizations and large public utility organizations.

Cynical pattern. Employees are very negative about organizational characteristics. “This negativity is reflected in the change process, which is, remarkably, being pushed through in a relatively unsystematic way by apparently solitary operating change managers.” Found in: research institutions, non-commercial service industry, and central government.

“The results suggest it would be wise for change managers to choose for a participative change approach and for a thorough process management,” Werkman writes. “Power strategies do not enforce compliance but evoke resistance.”

“Understanding failure to change: a pluralistic approach and five patterns”, by Renate A. Werkman; Leadership and Organization Development Journal (Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 664-684, 2009)

If you cannot find this paper in your local library, email me for a copy: Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: jtu

Public agencies may be doing a good job at slashing waste using Six Sigma and lean techniques but they could be doing a lot better by focusing on the “soft” side: implementing a robust management structure and changing employees’ mindsets.

In the publication McKinsey on Government, consultants Maia Hansen and John Stoner offer a step-by-step approach to establishing the right infrastructure for a lean transformation (lean has been defined as strategy that focuses on eliminating waste, which includes all processes that do not add value to the final product or service).

Create a value-stream map that identifies where value lies in each step of the process. “Our strong recommendation . . . is to form a cross-functional team with representatives who interact with the process in a variety of ways and therefore see it from different perspectives.”

Get data to the right people at the right time. That means focusing on Key Performance Indicators that matter most and ensuring that the right people are viewing them.

Establish new roles to smooth processes. The lean initiative may be best served, for example, by creating a new coordinating position to boost efficiency.

Align interests to drive momentum. The McKinsey consultants like gainsharing arrangements to embed the concept of continuous improvement, build morale, and sustain enthusiasm.

Hansen and Stoner also offer suggestions on how to change employee mindsets.

Get staff to focus on the consumer. This may be a challenge for a public agency with no competitors, but a good technique is to have employees follow a customer through the entire process of interacting with the agency/employer and to experience bureaucratic frustrations.

Break down silos. Make sure units know what other units are up to or create shared metrics to help units better understand shared goals.

Inspire employees to overcome risk aversion. The public sector may be allergic to performance measurement and risk but managers can change that perception. “Managers should thank employees for trying new approaches,” the authors write, “and focus on solving problems rather than assigning blame for mistakes.”

A Leaner Pubic Sector, by Maia Hansen and John Stoner; McKinsey on Government (Number 4, Summer 2009)

photo credit: Toban Black

In this video interview with The McKinsey Quarterly (biz journal of McKinsey & Company), Stanford U Professor Robert Sutton talks about how, in tough economic times, leaders/supervisors experience the “toxic tandem.” On the one hand, people in power tend to be oblivious to the needs and actions of people with less power. On the other, subordinates are hyper vigilant; they closely watch the boss for cues and clues as to what is really going down (“Am I next on the chopping block?”).

I presented the ideas to a group of executives. And this guy walks up to me and he starts describing his executive vice president and how one of the secretaries walked up to him and said, “When are the layoffs going be?” And he says, “What?” And then she went to explain. She said, “Well, it’s an ‘interesting shoes’ day for you.”

What this guy has a reputation of doing is he can’t look people in the eye when he’s upset about stuff, so he would always be looking at his shoes. They were saying, “The boss is having ‘interesting shoes’ day.” So from just the fact the guy walked around not looking anybody in the eye, she went straight up to him. So that to me is a pretty good sign he was oblivious to that, right?

The antidote for the toxic tandem, says Sutton, is prediction, understanding, control, and compassion. “Prediction”: Give assurance where you can and don’t overpromise. “Understand”: Make the effort to clearly communicate  the situation in ways that people will understand. “Control”: Give people a measure of control over the way layoffs happen. And “compassion”?: Have a heart, buddy.

As for dealing with the psyche of those who survive layoffs, Sutton says the key is fairness. “When they see that it’s fair,,” he says, “they are more likely to stay loyal, suffer less psychological damage, and also feel more guilty and work even harder to help you.”

Link to Bob Sutton’s excellent blog

A good argument can be made that the key reason a new initiative fails is employees’ perception that their organization is not ready for change. If that’s the case, what can change agents do to get employees to believe that the organization is indeed primed and ready? Researchers Inta Cinite and Linda Duxbury (Carleton U) and Chris Higgins (U of Western Ontario) developed an empirically-tested diagnostic to do just that.

As a basis, the researchers started with the concept of PORC, “perceived organizational readiness for change.” Developed back in the 1970s, PORC defines employees’ belief that the organization not only can initiate change but also engages in practices that will lead to successful implementation. They then developed a way to measure PORC in public sector organizations, based on research from five organizations that had initiated transformational change. Projects included a shift in the strategic direction toward a higher degree of transparency, a shift from a command and control management style to one that was based on employee empowerment, a change in reporting relationships, and two organizational restructuring efforts.

This is what they came up with:

“Organizations that want to be perceived by their employees to be ready for change should pay close attention to the behaviours of their leaders, change agents, immediate supervisors at all levels, organizational practices around the change, and how these practices impact people’s daily work.” The researchers suggest that managers who have direct reports should be well equipped to communicate change to their staff and provide the necessary support.

“Organizations are judged to be not ready for change due to poor communication practices when employees perceive that the outcomes, benefits and reasons for the change are not well explained and when employees do not understand the vision behind the change.”

Employees’ perceptions are also informed by the impact the change is thought to have on
their work. They will remain skeptical of change if: old duties are not phased out when new ones are assigned; they are discouraged from saying ‘no’ to work; and they are assigned heavy workloads that hinder them from getting involved in the change initiative.

Measurement of Perceived Organizational Readiness for Change in the Public Sector, by Inta Cinite, Linda E. Duxbury, and Chris Higgins; British Journal of Management, Vol. 20, 265–277 (2009)

Email me for a copy of this paper: Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: Auntie P

Two thirds of all change programs sputter and fail. Could it be that rational change leaders rely too much on common sense while disregarding the inherent irrationality of their colleagues? Two very rational McKinsey consultants build the case that human nature gets in the way of truly changing behaviour.

Consider the old chestnut of the compelling change story. It is now a given that leaders must communicate a clear story, which usually amounts to a narrative about regaining lost momentum. Aiken and Keller say this may seem like a rational approach, but it does not tap into what motivates most managers and employees.

These are the real drivers: “impact on society (for instance, building the community and stewarding resources), impact on the customer (for example, providing superior service), impact on the company and its shareholders, impact on the working team (for example, creating a caring environment), and impact on “me” personally (my development, paycheck, and bonus).” If a change leader can hit those five buttons, she is off to the races.

The manner in which the change story is told is no less significant. Instead of rolling out town halls and websites, change leaders would do better to help employees learn for themselves what the story needs to be. It may be easier to just lay it all out but employees are much more likely to buy in to the program when they are part of building the story.

Aikens and Keller offer a number of other insights:

• People think that they are better than they are (except me). Change leaders fall into this trap by thinking they themselves do not need to change.
• Do not over-invest in trying to woo the social “influencers”. More important is how receptive the organization is to the idea of change.

The Aikens-Keller article includes advice on how to follow up on skills-building programs with fieldwork assignments, as well as a reading list.

The Irrational Side of Change Management, by Carolyn Aiken and Scott Keller; The McKinsey Quarterly (Number 2, 2009)

Link to the article

photo credit: adinaduke

I am a big believer in the power of storytelling to help organizational players think in new ways and move through periods of change. “Stories” in this context can relate how an enterprise was born, how a team faced a business challenge or coped with the sudden loss of a key executive, or even how a leader learned key insights.

Storytelling has been long considered a quaint yet fringe leadership communication technique but, judging by recent buzz, it is inching closer to the management mainstream.

A useful contribution to the field appears in a recent issue of the Center for Creative Leadership’s Leadership in Action journal. In an article, Nick Nissley of The Banff Centre and leadership coach Stedman Graham develop the concept of “rescription.” Scripting, the authors point out, is how screenwriters propel a story forward. In an organizational setting, rescription refers to the process by which leaders find new stories to replace old ones no longer serving their organizations’ best interests.

Nissley and Graham spell out a three-step process for rescription:

1. “Titling the present script”: Leaders must articulate what’s stuck and, “like good writers, identify a future turning point and what needs to become unstuck.”

2. “Founding the Future Script”: Once leaders have confronted the dysfunctional script, they need to courageously open the door to an alternative script.

3. “Actualizing the New Script”: The rubber hits the road only when a new script is enacted.

The Narrative Lens and Organizational Change; by Nick Nissley and Stedman Graham; Leadership in Action (Center for Creative Leadership); January-February 2009

Email me for a copy of this paper: Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: Patrick Charles

I often wonder why some management theories seem to have great legs and others can’t get out of the stable. How do paradigms shift?

To find out, Nick Oliver of University of Edinburgh studied the adoption of Japanese “lean” manufacturing methods in the UK, in a couple of unconventional ways. First, he was a participant-observer in a one-day seminar by lean guru Dr. Eliyahu Goldratt. Second, he studied the response of the UK engineering community to the publication of a report questioning the financial benefits of lean manufacturing methods.

Oliver found in these two cases that the language used to discuss lean ideas sounded a lot like the language used in religious conversions, and the responses to criticism of the methods were similar to responses to religious blasphemy. So much for rationality.
Oliver concluded that factors such as the aesthetics of ideas, their intuitive appeal, the method by which they’re delivered, and the characteristics of their promoters all influence their acceptance at least as much as hard evidence of their efficacy.

There is a payoff for change management practitioners. If the author is to be believed, purveyors of new ideas (such as org change) should project “expertness”, trustworthiness, and personal dynamism. As for the ideas themselves, there should be local demonstrations of applicability and they should somehow predict events and/or solve problems previously considered to be intractable.

Rational choice or leap of faith? The creation and defence of a management orthodoxy; Nick Oliver; The Learning Organization Journal (2008, vol. 15, no. 5, 373-387)

Email me for a copy of this paper: Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: systemsrelaunch