Change: Being at The Same Place at The Same Time

Today's article is the fourth in a series about Change from Steve Roesler.

Change?: Hit Delete, Insert "Desired Result and People"

"Gee, I hope I'm a target today?" 

That's not real high on my wish list when I'm getting ready for work in the morning.

But in case you aren't aware of it, there are a number of Change Management programs that use the idea of Change Sponsors and Change Targets. (If you aren't in the first group, breathe deeply and get in touch with your inner-dartboard).

One of the assumptions here is that whoever wants to start some kind of a change will have to go through a lengthy process of breaking down the (assumed) resistance of those Target people. The underlying dynamics of these models have kernels of truth that make them appear somewhat sensible and unbelievably marketable.

Consultant, standing if front of executive group: "How many of you have ever tried to get people to follow your ideas but were met with blank stares or even worse, resistance?"

Executive group: "Oooh, aaahh, our work lives and bonuses are in jeopardy because of resistant weasels. You are unbelievably insightful. The gods must be appeased. Do you have some incense and a suitable human sacrifice, preferably someone from HR?"

Consultant: "If I could show you a way to achieve your change without burning incense but only sacrificing the HR dude, when would you want to begin?"

Executive group: "Get the HR guy. Now"

Consultant: "This process, when followed correctly, only takes 2-5 years to get the Targets totally on board. Tell me about the change you want to make.

Executive group: We want people to stagger their summer vacations so that there's always 90% coverage in all of our work groups.

Consultant, stroking chin: "I think we can do that one in a year and a half."

Executive group: "Wunderbar! When do we get the darts?"

Us and Them

Once you introduce an Us and Them relationship you've set up a self-fulfilling prophecy. People who would have welcomed the chance to jump in and roll up their sleeves now find that they've been designated as potential problems. What's the natural human reaction to being labeled a "target" and "potential problem?" You feel justified in  becoming more of a problem than anyone ever imagined.

At this point, the consultant ("See, I told you so") looks brilliant. The program then rolls out in its entirety, takes on a life of its own, and continues until victory is declared regardless of the outcome.

Is There Another Way?

"Why did we hire 55,000 brains and only use three of them?"
    Woody Morcott, CEO, Dana Corporation courtesy of Wally Bock, who adds:

"Sometimes the best way to get people to the same place with you is for you to go to that place together."

We looked at the see-saw model in Part II        and        Part III (click to enlarge).

What would happen if changes and improvements started off like this?

We talk a lot about the importance of making decisions closest to the source; the power of teams, and participation.

Why not just acknowledge the totality of the collective brainpower, bring people together at the beginning, and start trying things out while learning together?

I think Lee Thayer has some good insight on this:

"We’re not very good at thinking about interdependence in our culture. We’re more of a something-caused-something-else kind of culture. We have nouns and then we have verbs, so we are susceptible to thinking that the leader causes what followers do. If you consider that critically, you can see that it doesn’t quite work that way. I might be able to kill you, but there is no way I can force you to like me – or to follow my lead. Children understand that very well before they are forced into a somebody – caused – somebody else to do this or that view of the world."

Is there a relationship between ineffective change and the "single great leader" syndrome?

Is the notion of "disruption" a clever but equally ineffective substitute for maintaining the equilibrium people need in order to feel safe enough to take risks?

If you liked this, I think you'll also like:

Yes, They can: Real Life Change

Initiating a Change? Think About This

 

 

Comments

[Lee Thayer]

Very astute, Steve. I like this engaging approach. And you're spot on about the "Us" vs. "Them" thing. But I'm thinking, after 45 years in the trenches with CEOs (etc.), that our cultural biases may be leading us in the wrong direction. What comes to mind is that those who are striving to be virtuosos at what they do are very receptive to change and personal improvement. So maybe what we call "resistance" to change may be better thought of as a threat to the status quo. Not many people are lifelong learners. or even want to be. So the issue may be that of who owns what problem. Next image: Two people who are both incompetent and self-satisfied won't produce much as a result of teaming up. Then there's change itself - more of a modern mantra than a useful concept. Change WHAT? Patton's method changed people - for the better (the attrition rate in Patton's armies was the lowest with the greatest exposure). He didn't do that by engaging draftees in what they thought the method should be. Ever tried asking people if they want to change themselves in any significant way? Whatever their verbal answer, doesn't it seem to you that most people are incompetent to change themselves, so they get together to change the world to better suit them? Is that "change"?

[David Zinger]

Steve:
You really hit the target with this one. No, I guess you really included the target and stopped calling people targets. I think what sometimes is seen as resistance is better explained as "the gravity of the familiar." The familiar has a strong pull on us.
David

[Steve Roesler]

David,

What a useful phrase: "The gravity of the familiar". It sounds as if you and Lee are thinking along the same lines with this one, eh?

[Steve Roesler]

Hello, Lee,

Well, you won't get much of an argument from me on the status quo thing, for sure. My observation is that "resistance" is more of a fight to stay in one's comfort zone than a fight with the the sensibility of whatever the improvement happens to be.

Your remark about most people *not* being lifelong learners is also a shared observation, with one distinction: the same people who aren't lifelong learners at their workplace may very well spend several hours a week perfecting their bowling game or researching the ideal lawn fertilizer. And of course there are many others who are content watching I Love Lucy re-runs and waxing poetic about the good old days in which they also chose not to participate.

As for the Patton/Directive/changing one's self combo: coming up in a future post.

Thanks for the thoughtful and provocative addition to the topic.