Change: A Genuine Change Question For You

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

Do you sometimes wonder what's going on under the surface or behind the scenes when you expect one thing but receive another?

Change: Reflection, Discernment, and Wisdom was yesterday's post. It was prompted by previous comments and touched upon the importance of personal change--as well as how organizations sometimes dabble "at" vs. "attend to" it as a foundation for professional growth and future change.

I had expected this to trigger a number of comments. It didn't, although those offered up by Karin H. and  Tom Haskins sure added to the depth and breadth of learning.

If I were working with a group and something unexpected happened--say, an unusual silence--I'd simply ask what was going on, if anything. After all, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Yet I'm curious. Do you think people--(would you?)--prefer to talk about the procedural and tasky parts of Change and leave the deeper, "personal change" part of it  alone?

Help me out with this one? What do you think?

Here are links to the individual articles, to date. I hope you gain something helpful that will cause you to think about some aspect of change in a new way:

Real-Life Change: Offer More Time, Less Judgment

Making Changes, Leading Changes, and Changing Change

How Do People Process Change?

Change: You're Here, They're There, Now What?

Change: Being At The Same Place At The Same Time 

Change and Leadership: When Participation Needs Direction

Change: When The People Demand "It" Now!

Change: "Nah, I'd Rather Die. Really."

Change: It Happens In The Middle

Change: Business Goal or People Process?

Change: Reflection, Discernment, and Wisdom 

Comments

[Karin H.]

Or perhaps Steve you said it all in yesterdays post? ;-)

(So a cigar is a cigar?)

Karin H. (Keep It Simple Sweetheart, specailly in business)

[Steve Roesler]

Good morning, Karin,

OK. Fine. Keep it Simple.

Maybe it's just time to sit back and enjoy a Macanudo, eh?

[Karin H.]

These are better ;-)

http://www.willem2cigars.com/

Karin H.

[Karin H.]

Coming back to your original question: "would you prefer to talk about the procedural and tasky parts of Change and leave the deeper, "personal change" part of it alone?"

I don't think you can separate those two items when change is involved. That would make us machines where the program/activity is being edited, updated without us (the machine) having any say/feeling/opinion on it - or the opportunity to make the editing/updating process better, more efficient.

Karin H.

[Joe Raasch]

Hi Steve,

There is little conversation and less action to the "procedural and tasky" part of change. There is much conversation and little real action/success to most change efforts.

Just like management: so much attention is focused on the sexy topics like Career Management, Interviewing Skills, Individual Development Plans, Performance Consulting, Employee Engagement, Leadership Training, Management Training, etc. Success in these areas assumes the corporation has instituted the following:

Accountability: hold people accountable to the goals you set for them. You do set goals for your teams, right?

Direction: give clear direction for change. You do set a vision and create that sense of urgency, right?

Culture: give people what they need to accomplish their goals and accelerate change. You don’t micromanage, do you?

Of course, accountability, direction, and culture work isn't all that fun - so it doesn't get done well, or at all.

This is similar to change management (and Karin's astute view): the process and personal are intertwined. The success of one is directly linked to the success of the other. Foundation is process, optimizing is the personal part!

IMHO - a cigar is never just a cigar. Think Pappy Boyington, Clint Eastwood, Denny Crane and Alan Shore(Boston Legal TV show), me fishing in Canada in May. It is an experience.

[Tom Haskins]

Steve:
That pattern you've identified with "companies dabbling with pop-psych concepts du jour" -- signals to me a lack of depth and an avoidance of personal changing. Flitting from one fad to the next keeps things superficial and away from "looking within for what is showing up in the mirror".

I join peter vajda in applauding: "the efforts of industrial and organizational psychologists, workplace cultural anthropologists, or insight coaches, for example, who look deeply into the fabric of a corporate culture to discern what the truth is when it comes to resistance". Getting into the depths of hidden dynamics is hard work that takes time and energy, not concepts du jour. So I'm also agreeing with karin and joe that procedures and personal change are two sides of one coin.

[Jim Stroup]

Steve,

This has been a terrific series, and I think the comments it has generated have indicated as much.

As for the presumed "hard" and "soft" issues of change management, I think Joe has probably put it as concisely and effectively as can be.

But I also have to agree with your condemnation of the psycho-babble laden fads of the day. Managers need to be honest with themselves, and know themselves, yes - partly as any adult does, and partly to lend them the character and confidence to see through and resist the fads, and to array their thinking and assets behind their goals. I don't think the issue is so much that managers have a greater obligation or need to know themselves than anyone else, as it is that their failure to do so has consequences that may be more problemmatic for the firm.

That may sound contradictory, but my concern has been that the more talk I hear of people knowing or discovering their inner selves, the more self-delusion paired with dismissal of what come to be viewed as less consequential beings I see come right along with it. The irony being, of course, that the more we focus on it, the more distant we find ourselves from it.

The best thing for managers to do at work is to ground their thinking and actions in the work, not in themselves. As soon as they start considering issues - certainly including those as important as are involved in change - on the basis of their singular managerial characteristics or personalities rather than their simple relevance or effect on the issue at hand, they are likely to drift astray of the mark.

While I applaud academic efforts to understand work, I submit that there is much less rigor involved in academic work than is generally understood, even in the "hardest" of sciences - the implication of this in as new and soft a field as management should serve as a caution to us to avoid anointing academic work with any special insight not available to managers from other sources. It is potentially valuable, but must be assessed with the same practical skepticism that we are talking about applying to any other advice offered a manager.

As Karin says, you can't separate a person's character from his or her performance of tasks. It's just that I find this observation both more and less profound than some others who have made it. It is more profound because it applies to all of us in every aspect of our lives; it is less profound because it is no less likely to prove a shortcoming in managers as anyone else, and no more likely to be remediated by pointing it out to an adult manager than to any other adult.

The primary thing that managers need to know about themselves is that they are managers, with specific responsibilities and assets for discharging them. We can leave the chin-stroking to their advisors.

[Joe Raasch]

Jim, you did an outstanding job articulating the frustration I somtimes feel when I engage with managers that are more concerned about who they are than what they get done. This focus comes partly from the relentless job of managing. Weaker areas are exacerbated under pressure, just like water building behind a dam.

"Managing people is a service job."

That is the first thing I teach aspiring and new managers. Where this gets distorted is when the manager focuses on all the popular assessment tools that look to define the manager's inner child instead of the skills needed to accomplish their work and serve their teams.

None of this solves the problem of what to do if a manager has some personal shortcomings that affect their ability to manage. It just highlights the reality that someone has to tell the king, "Hey, no clothes on there champ!"

[Steve Roesler]

Karin, Joe, Tom, and Jim,

You've helped this topic move to a different place as a result of your experience-based and thoughtful remarks. As a result, instead of just responding to the comments and leaving it at that, I'm going to use them to create a post.

Have been in meetings yesterday and today, and intend to develop it sometime later today (Friday).

Many thanks for responding to the question...let's see how these thoughts might be collectively helpful to our readers!

Best regards,

Steve