Change: Business Goal or People Process?

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

Have you ever noticed how hard it is for people to talk about Change without getting into a heated debate about what's most important, "The goal" or "The people?"

I think the answer is "Yes".

It's a real Chicken or Egg argument. Textbook Task vs. Process. We can see it in this way:

I used to believe the real question was, "Which axis requires the most concentrated attention at a given moment?" But I now think that's wrong. Everyone has to stay focused on the outcome as well as how effectively they're getting to it.

The challenge rests with different, inherent learning styles.

Some of us really prefer to do, then reflect and learn (maybe).

Some of us prefer to reflect on what we're about to do, then do it (hopefully).

You can see why it's so important for managers to be really involved during any change initiative. They have to figure out how and when to do, teach, reflect, and keep the cycle going.

Good managers do this all the time.

In a major change, they become Management Maestros: orchestra conductors who take the familiar music off of the stand and hand out a totally new arrangement.That means that everyone is going to have to learn something new.

So it is with change.

Understanding the process means understanding how people learn. If you're a goal-oriented, task-driven leader, you can't separate--or diminish--intentional growth & development. It's part of the process of success.

What has your experience been with an emphasis--or over-emphasis--of one versus the other?

Part 10 will look closer at learning and it's place in change, management, and organization development.

 

Comments

[Jim Stroup]

Steve,

This is a really important point you are making, here. Sometimes, when we try to reduce so complex an enterprise as you describe to a prioritized list, what we are really doing is attempting to find a way to not have to engage in the difficult and troublesome task of exercising our judgement. We want to justify a succession of tasks in a simplistic way, then focus on each in turn, blithely - even willfully - dismissive of the purpose they are expected to serve.

As you say, managers need to keep process and purpose united. The musical analogy is an excellent depiction of the requirement.

I can hardly single out an instance where I haven't seen this happen in change efforts. It must be said that there is a commendable side to the instinct: People recognize the challenge and difficulty of the project, the tendency it can have to produce organizational paralysis, and thus the need to just get going, so they devise a way to get out of the starting blocks and get people moving.

But without disciplined managerial supervision placing action in context, this threatens to, and usually does, become a prime example of frenetic motion being confused for forward progress.

Thanks for this superb presentation of a much misunderstood aspect of the problem.

[Steve Roesler]

Jim,

Indeed, the contextual part is a big deal and I think it's where the learning takes place for the future. Without understanding "why" and "how things fit" into a context, it's tough to know when to apply what you are doing to similar situations down the road.

Thanks again for adding to the thought process!