Sunday, June 02, 2013

No One Likes to Be Changed

No One Likes to Be Changed

by Daniel Markovitz  |  10:00 AM May 16, 2013
Listen to the language that any leader, consultant, or HR professional uses, and you'll hear them expound at length about how "we" need to change "them." That says it all: the fact is, no one likes to be changed, even if the change is ultimately beneficial.
In his recent HBR blog post, Ron Ashkenas argues that the reason most change management initiatives fail is due to stunted managerial capability to implement change. He points out — correctly, I believe — that in many organizations the responsibility for change initiatives has come to rest with HR, and not with the line supervisors and managers. However, I believe that there's a deeper, more fundamental problem with the way we frame the whole notion of change management. In fact, I propose that we dispense with the concept of "change management" entirely. History shows that's a recipe guaranteed to foment fear, resistance, and — ultimately —failure.
Many factors underlie that failure. Research shows that there's actually a decrease in cognitive function when people feel as though they lack control over their work environment. Moreover, repetitive change initiatives — particularly ones that include layoffs — inevitably lead to cynicism and often to a kind of learned helplessness.
A far more effective approach would be to actually involve workers in solving business problems. As Dan Pink writes in his book Drive, the autonomy and skill development that comes with solving problems for oneself will do more to overcome resistance and motivate change than any strategy a cloistered HR professional or consultant can develop. I'm partial to A3 Thinking as a powerful way to solve problems, but the truth is — the tool you use doesn't really matter. The key is to pose a business problem to the workers actually doing the job and then having them design the change. Consider the following cases:
  • A group of senior R&D engineers at Abbott Vascular spent six to seven hours each day handling email. They were demoralized and frustrated by their inability to find time to do any engineering. On their own, they developed a new communication protocol that defined when and how to use email (never for urgent or complex issues), and now they can safely unshackle themselves from their smartphones and focus on engineering issues.
  • The interventional radiologists at a major cancer center were asked by leadership to lower costs and increase revenue by accelerating room turnover. They decided to standardize the devices (stents, guidewires, catheters, etc.) they use for basic cases. Reducing the variation lowered inventory-carrying costs and enabled technicians and nurses to set up rooms more quickly.
  • In her book, Sleeping with Your Smartphone, Leslie Perlow recounts how she set a goal of one day per week of "predictable time off" for a team of consultants at the Boston Consulting Group. The consultants themselves then devised radically different work habits and client communication procedures to make it happen — an initiative that has now been adopted by over 900 teams worldwide.
  • A typical Toyota assembly line in the U.S. makes thousands of operational changes in the course of a single year. As journalist Charles Fishman writes, "that number is not just large, it's arresting, it's mind-boggling." Toyota doesn't have change management consultants driving those changes; the workers themselves make them.
In each of these cases, it's easy to imagine how externally imposed solutions by leadership or HR would have been fiercely resisted, leading to lengthy disquisitions on how to manage or overcome employee intransigence. The real secret to successful change, therefore, is not to change people at all. Let them figure out how to solve their own problems, and they'll do the rest.
Daniel Markovitz

DANIEL MARKOVITZ

Daniel Markovitz is the president of TimeBack Management and the author of A Factory of One (Productivity Press, December 2011). Follow him on his blog or on Twitter at@timeback.










COMMENTS:


  • Anna_farrow
    This is an interesting article and reflects something that I have believed in for many years. Delivering change is not just about the business, but also the emotive.
    People agree to a change that they have created themselves. Change as a strict dictat can foster resentment.
    Within our work space change processes we highlight what end users do have influence over, and what they don't. Influence does not mean they get everything they ask for as it may contradict the business change, however their questions will be respected and answered, though it may not be the answer they want to hear. The end users are responsible for collaborating and agreeing on the work space culture (behaviours) for their new office space. They own this process, we support them through it.
    Some people will need more support during the change, line managers may need additional skills - and some will be itching to get started in the brave new world. This is to be expected, each one of them are intelligent, articulate and very human.
  • Olivier Compagne
    Couldn't agree more! The top-down organization of most companies makes it fundamentally difficult for workers to self-organize and implement changes. It's one thing to bring up local solutions to problems that the boss acknowledges, it's another to adopt changes to fix something that the boss doesn't even consider broken.
    I work with a system called Holacracy, the goal of which is to distribute authority and decision making precisely to allow any team to self-organize and address problems locally. All the "rules" of spelled out in writing for any organization to use: http://holacracy.org.
  • R A Artz
    This is something I say often- Don't be afraid of change. Be afraid of not changing.
    Change without direction or purpose is demoralizing. Change, as noted in this article, where all feel empowered, yields results & change that is embraced. 
  • Amber King , Marketing Executive. Lead Generator. Appointment Setter.
    Change is one thing that most of us dislike especially in business. Like you said, we are scared to fail. But this mindset should be changed. If we need to alter something in order to be better, then we should embrace it.
  • Ahalzind@hotmail.com
    It's about striking a balance of setting challenging targets and letting people find a way to get there versus setting a challenging target and insisting on a method of how to get there. The "how" is as important as the "what" and in many instances is more important.
  • ronstrauss
    See Edgar Schein's work on process consultation.
  • Fitim Rasidi
    We need to improve them.
  • Tackdowds
    This is be a powerful way for management to go. We need a lot more of it, our politicians need to do the same, we need to vote on decisions for the people by the people, add problem solving to the people. It creates energy, and is empowering. 
  • Liamanderson64
    Thoroughly agree. Anyone who is not involved in the decision making process will end up fighting back or quietly sabotaging the process-specially middle management.
  • Andrea Lange
    If people feel that change is imposed they feel powerless, helpless and ultimately they adopt a victim mentality that 'something is done to them'. If you explain the background (even if it is painful, most people are better handling painful facts than a smoke screen or consultant BS) and if you show people that they have a role to play, you will take a team with you.
    Mind you, it takes time and energy to engage hearts and minds, it's not a 'I have told them once' discussion.
    The least effective changes are those which are designed in ivory towers ont he basis of 'this should work' - everything is easy for the person who doesn't have to do it. The most effective changes are those where those who are affected have a voice and feel a sense of belonging. It works - but it takes time and energy and patience which is sadly lacking in many organisations.
  • Tom Hathaway
    Great
    discussion. I support the concept that those impacted by change should be the implementers
    and (when possible) the instigators and change imposed by management is
    ineffective.
    On the
    other hand, I firmly believe that every solution creates its own set of
    problems. I think whether to use effective change management (and I agree with
    all disclaimers in other poster's comments regarding how change should be
    managed) or not depends on the situation. As Hemanta noted: "Changes are
    constant and inevitable and since they cannot be avoided they need to be
    managed for smooth transition to the changed state. In that sense change
    management is a very positive and powerful management tool."
    A key
    consideration is the scope of the change. As a business analysis consultant and
    instructor, I hear and observe all too often how a "minor" change in
    one part of an organization creates an different "problem" in another
    department because the people who "fixed their problem" were not
    aware of how their change impacts other groups. One part of the issue is you
    define role of management. IMHO, the manager's job is not to manage the people,
    it is to manage the environment and motivate the people. Managers have the
    responsibility for recognizing how their group's actions fit into the overall
    organization and they are often the only ones who can recognize potential
    external impacts.
    To
    empower employees to be the change agents you propose, I believe at a minimum that
    they...
    show more
  • Danmasani1016
    Does this imply by extension that democratic style of leadership is always the best?
  • Daniel Melchior, The Shared Services Authority
    Like any relationship, trust is the key to implementing
    change.  The leader’s responsibility is
    to build a team or organization where management trusts the employees to do
    their job and the employees trust management’s leadership and direction.  In many cases, employees worry that
    productivity increases might adversely affect them personally (e.g. reduction
    in force) so they are hesitant to make changes.
    This is simply human nature and therefore very understandable.  It’s management’s responsibility to ensure
    that everyone understands why change is needed and how it fits with the overall
    strategy of the enterprise.  If
    productivity increases can lead to possible layoffs, employees should be aware
    of this, conversely if productivity is needed because the company is preparing for
    growth, employees should know this is well.
    Understanding “Why” and “What’s In It For Me” will help build the trust
    needed to succeed.  You are only as good
    as those you are surrounded by so hire the best and brightest and give them the
    latitude to use their talents.   
  • Bruno Van Cauwenbergh
     Spot on Daniel !
  • Cmiller446
    Great post and very timely for me since i am contemplating taking over a big change process at the private school I work at in a senior management position. How do you create a culture that supports risk taking which would empower people to act?
  • Sanjiv Bhamre
    By the way, just like to remind you, that teachers, parents and even 'students' are your stakeholders in a school depending on the kind of change you are initiating. Because i work in school, i have found that i have a tendency to avoid 'parents'. 
  • Andrew
     Also you reinforce the position that change will never solve all challenges, but is an ongoing process in life and business.
  • Manuel Ruano
    In the word of Jack Welch, you let them know it's ok to fail and make mistakes. You accept your mistakes, not in a somber, but almost in a "laugh at my self kind of way". The only way people know its ok to take risks is showing them it is ok to make mistakes, as long as it is not part of a hurried, not even thought of action
  • Chery Gegelman
    Powerful Post! - Thank you for more evidence that when we engage the hearts and minds of all of employees from at all levels, and when we pay them to think instead of just following directives.  We all win!  
    Love this quote, "Research shows that there's actually a decrease in cognitive function when people feel as though they lack control over their work environment. Moreover, repetitive change initiatives — particularly ones that include layoffs — inevitably lead to cynicism and often to a kind of learned helplessness."
    The Toyota example at the end of the post resonated loudly!  "Toyota doesn't have change management consultants driving those changes; the workers themselves make them."
  • Heather Stagl
    Personally, I think if you are doing change management right, you are involving people in the process. I don't see these paths as mutually exclusive.
     
  • Dan
    Heather --
    Fair enough. But in my experience, most change management initiatives don't involve people in the process. And perhaps not surprisingly, 70% (or more) of these initiatives fail. So there's room for improvement.
  • Avril Riley
    I agree with Heather. In some cases if you wait on employee to make the change it will never happen as there are those who are satisfied with status quo. In the case of high performance teams I can see where this would work to have the employees drive the change.
  • Guest
    Do your clients contact you after their employees have reviewed all available process improvement methodologies and decided that lean is the way to go?  As a consultant yourself who works to change the way business is done, by your argument, deciding upon using lean should be an employee empowered decision.  I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but it appears you haven't been exposed to good change management practices.  While you're correct, it shouldn't be housed in HR, there needs to be someone accountable for making sure the messaging gets out to the right people at the right times, that any additional training needed is developed and offered, any job aids that are necessary are created, that a feedback loop is created and acted upon. Any good consultant, change or lean or otherwise, should involve the employees in the process to the extent that they work themselves out of a job rather than leaving a big notebook for the client to implement.  Nimble organizations, one where innovation and continuous improvement are embedded within the culture are probably more likely to have employees willing to be involved in changes.  However, a company that hasn't fostered those things may have a hard time even having that first conversation about whatever is causing a need for change.  
  • Ian Brownlee
    A few more thoughts on Change:
     Language, Psychology & a Humanistic Perspective on “Change Management".
    Short link: http://wp.me/p2guX2-5s   
    PART 2: Linguistics, psychology and a humanistic perspective of change management: 6 Common Errors. Shortlink: http://wp.me/p2guX2-8S
  • Dan
    Ian -- thanks for these links.
  • Sanjiv Bhamre
    Very beautifully put. Change has to be incorporated as part of work, not a patch to work. Toyota example is perhaps the best example of how to do this. But i am still surprised, why companies still refuse to learn from it.
  • Kate Stull
    I love these thoughts on autonomy and control in the workplace; I think giving power to the individual to make the right choice is a major factor in excellent leadership. Thanks for sharing these case studies about empowering teams to change themselves for the better. They are spot on!
    Kate
    http://recruitinghacks.com
  • Anbu Muppidathi
    While I like the idea of challenging the actual workforce to arrive at a change implementation plan, it is very important to prepare them for the challenge. Otherwise it will end up ineffective. The preparation, in my opinion should not be a one time activity. Constant preparation and establishing guidance, just like what we should do when the team faces an unexpected incident, should be the key. How many of us review the change management procedure with our team constantly? We should do that first, before we challenge them to propose ways to manage them
  • dougom
    I think a big issue that feeds this problem is that of pay:  To make Big Money in the U.S., you have to be in management.  This creates a push for smart people who want to make decent money to go into management, whether they want to manage or not.  Once *in* management, they want to do *something*.   In my experience in high tech, that means "reorgs", i.e. reorganizing the workforce to be "more efficient", "boost synergy", or whatever other spurious reason you're given.  But the bottom line is, more smart people in management who have to show that they're "doing something".  So they do.  Whether it makes sense or not.  If you're not "doing something", how can you justify your job and therefore your high pay?
    To solve this, there is the classic carrot and stick approach to pay.  On the "carrot" side, an obvious solution is to create alternative work "tracks" where people can keep doing what they love--engineering, hardware design, whatever--and receive the high pay of a manager without having to *be* a manager.  Some high tech companies do this (not many).
    The "stick" solution is to reduce management pay from its current absurd levels to something more in line with Europe or Japan.  I'm not holding my breath about *that* one, though; once people grab money, they're not going to give it up.
  • Jay Oza, We help companies bring their innovation to market within 90 days to increase their market valuation. We do it by using 5 Tool Methodology that integrates sales. marketing, partnerships, customer development and agile/lean methodology.
    The reason we have schools is that it takes a long time to unlearn and learn.  After that it is experience which takes even longer.  
  • Jon Youd
    This article raises an interesting dilemma: how does management let control of the change trickle down to lower level managers and employees, while at the same time trusting that these will achieve the correct big-picture changes at the desired pace? I believe the responsibility lies with leadership in providing the correct incentives, measuring the right metrics, and instilling the right vision in the minds of those under their direction. If these factors aren't in place, the status quo will ultimately win out and the desired big-picture changes won't be implemented.
  • Dan
    Jon,
    Leadership must paint a clear picture of where the organization is trying to go, and then help lower level managers and employees figure out what change is necessary to get there. They can also cooperate in defining the relevant metrics to help monitor progress.
  • Katherine Gudgel
    Dan and Jon have hit upon the heart of why organizations fail to change successfully.  Leaders need to clearly articulate what future they expect for their organization and then trust the content experts, the front line workers to suggest ways to get there.  In my experience both of these factors have been missing, resulting in confusion, paralysis and lower morale.
  • Hemanta Chandra Bhatt, Hemanta Chandra Bhatt
    Changes are constant and inevitable and since they cannot be avoided they need to be managed for smooth transition to the changed state. In that sense change management is a very positive and powerful management tool. Changes that are forced by difficult circumstances on an organization ("the boat is leaking, we are going to drown") are accepted more easily as there's no choice but to change the status quo. However, changes that are for the betterment of an organization ("can we make the boat go faster?") are generally not accepted easily as people have a choice to continue with the status quo. It is very true that no one likes to be changed however the very nature of human existence is about change and more change. Human beings change constantly from the time of taking birth to growing up, then aging till the time of finally departing from this world.
  • Dan
    You're exactly right: human beings change constantly from birth. And most of that change is self-driven, not externally imposed -- which is why I believe "change management" is a waste of time. 
  • Hemanta Chandra Bhatt, Hemanta Chandra Bhatt
    The thought that "most of that change is self-driven, not externally imposed" - is perhaps true, to a certain extent, for the physical changes to human body but not entirely for the non-physical changes (intellectual, spiritual, etc.)
  • Guest
    I wouldn't say that most change is self-driven.  We are constantly changing to adapt to our parent's wishes, school's norms, outside influences by peers, the need to make money to support oneself, living in society.  And, if change management is a waste of time, how do you propose that businesses evolve in relationship to changing competitive environments, disruptive innovations, regulatory changes?  Many change practitioners advocate exactly what you've proposed - so it's not that change management is a waste of time, but instead what you've experienced as change management needs to change.   
  • Hemanta Chandra Bhatt, Hemanta Chandra Bhatt
     Agree completely with your thoughts.
  • Richard Melrose, Advisor to business leaders re: enterprise health and value, purpose, strategy, risk, operational excellence, talent management, thinking, knowledge and innovation.
    To accelerate purposeful value creation, shift the focus from 'problem solving' to opportunity conversion'.
    “It is more productive to convert an opportunity into results than to solve a problem – which only restores the equilibrium of yesterday.  …‘maximization of opportunities’ is a meaningful, indeed a precise, definition of the entrepreneurial job." ― Peter Drucker
    Purposeful thinking process designs, which target desirable business developments, apply relevant domain expertise, multiple thinking disciplines and time to think, in order to systematically generate creative ideas, which, in turn, fuel continuous improvement and breakthrough innovation. Commit knowledge worker resources, accordingly.
    The most welcome business results constitute purchases that delight customers with utility, value and leadership, time and again.
     "It is always futile to restore normality; "normality" is only the reality of yesterday. The job is not to impose yesterday's normal on a changed today; but to change the business, its behavior, its attitudes, its expectations – as well as its products, its markets and its distributive channels – to fit the new realities." ― Peter Drucker
  • Guest
    This article really strikes home for me. I am working in a role that is driving change at my organization and central to all our change is the thought of instilling "problem solving" within each layer of the organization to allow the workers to solve problems for themselves.
    However, one of the biggest challenges we face with this approach is getting the workers to take ownership and accountability for their problems/solutions/work environment. As the organization continues to put an emphasis on productivity (which the workers are in turn recognized and rewarded on), workers feel that "problem solving" detracts from their time to be working on measurable and reportable "productive" tasks.
    This leads me to think that a key factor in making this approach successful is to directly link/tie in problem solving into a worker's pay/bonus/other incentive program. What are some other tactics that we could use in our organization to help instill the problem solving culture at every layer of the organization?
  • Dan
    At Toyota, they say that improving the work is part of everyone's daily job -- it's not just something people do when they have some free time. Opher's point below is part of the answer: add problem solving or improvement or change to people's job description. 
    More importantly, however, leadership needs to be out on the floor (of the shop or the office), asking people what they're doing to change, reviewing the changes they've made, and asking what they can do to help. Unless there's DAILY involvement by leadership, people will see that the "change" is just the flavor of the week. 
    dan
  • Opher Ganel
    I'd suggest building into the workforce tasks (and thus the resources they can use, especially a portion of their work time) a specific line item related to innovation, whether it's in their work processes, features of products and/or new products.
    If management makes it clear they consider innovation to be something that workers are not just encouraged to engage in, but are expected to engage in, great things can come out of it.
    Depending on how far management wants to push things, they can tie bonuses, raises and/or promotions to success in this task.
  • Carl Medley II
    Agreed! Don't be change managers...be change facilitators. Help "them" make change happen!
  • David Kaiser, Executive Coach, Workshop Facilitator, Tarot EnthusiastCollapse
    I'm a big fan of management setting realistic targets and letting the people doing the jobs figure out how to get there. Lack of autonomy / control is a great way to kill morale and lose the best people. Giving people control, to the extent possible, goes a long way to alleviate this. 
    David Kaiser, PhD
    Executive Coach
    www.DarkMatterConsulting.com
  • Faten Alshehri
    Agree!
    Making changes with unempowered employees is quite challenging


posted by AcrosticGuy @ 8:50 AM   0 comments

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home