« Role Your Own | Main | Critical Mass on the Critical Path »

January 13, 2007

Why Change is So Hard

"People change; populations evolve."

The success of a proposed change will naturally depend on whether a critical mass of the necessary participants play along well. As change managers, we naturally prioritize that struggle at the top of the ToDo list.

But when it comes to having a proposed change adopted in the first place, it's not about groupthink. The difficulty begins with the predisposition that individuals have towards the evident idea of the change. Regardless of what the exact idea of the change is supposed to be, the process of adopting the change begins with what people think it is about -- and this will invoke their varying individual attitudes.

Attitude is when one's position is dominated by one's predisposition. It's what allows a guy who needs eight ounces in his glass to decide to call only four ounces either "half full" or "half empty"... Change provokes attitude-sensitive comparisons. Then, the comparison seeks "credibility", an effect which is always part objectivity and part validity.

What we should do is assume that the individual's initial position is always from a personal comfort zone, and that a change challenges it. In particular, starting from the individual's comfort with the "subjectively similar" (as in both the already adopted and the already familiar), the move that Change asks for is to a full appreciation of the "objectively different". This isn't about being easy or hard; it's about being sure to cover the bases.

To cause this move to take place, two key techniques are needed:
- Examples move the subjective perception to an objective certainty.
- Logic extends validity to the unfamiliar or different.

In practice, one can find these techniques utilized in the most common leading tools for influencing performance-related change, such as the Balanced Scorecard. While many differences exist between such tools, they share a reliance on the ability to present a logical "validity" model of causal relationships, along with definitions of elements that allow measurement to provide feedback as "objective" proof.

To summarize the range of attitudes that can exist, and their relative positions, the picture below maps the territory that is to be crossed in bringing about adoption of a change. The axes cross-reference point-of-view against the appearance of the proposed change -- which creates quadrants of positions. In the central area, key words representing the pre-disposition of the individual are placed in each quadrant. The words in the corner of each quadrant label the working evaluation of the prospects for adoption, which the proposer can expect. In the center of each quadrant, the individual's position is indicated. An extremely important principle illustrated is that while making a proposal either preferable or acceptable is probably necessary, it is insufficient to make it adoptable. (This usually turns out to be true because adoption requires creating opportunity, versus constraints and risks, in ways that preference or acceptance alone does not accomplish. Neither preference nor acceptance necessarily amounts to commitment. And while together they only maximize the likelihood, separately they rarely carry enough weight against constraints and risks.)

Posted by Malcolm Ryder at January 13, 2007 1:42 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.malcolmryder.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/305

Comments

Malcolm Ryder writes, "The success of a proposed change will naturally depend on whether a critical mass of the necessary participants play along well."

The underlying concept is a good one; I think the "critical mass" issue asks the question "how much is critical?" Depending on the system in which the participants operate, it may be that a single player can block the change, or it may be that a few players can make change happen against the indifference or active opposition of a majority. It is a matter of leverage on the system. In a close-knit system, a single player with influence can make a change happen. In a loosely-knit system, almost everyone may need to be involved. In a tangled (bureaucratic) system, one person may be able to block the whole thing. In some cases, one can alter the structure of the system to gain leverage, as in the case of creating a skunkworks.

Malcolm Ryder writes, "This isn't about being easy or hard; it's about being sure to cover the bases."

This idea, I really like.

I think most of the bases can be covered *before* the initial presentation through proper planning. At QTI, we have defined seven frameworks for change. To define and implement change, it appears to be necessary to do well within all of these frameworks. Indicative of Malcolm's matrix, they are:

1. Vision, Mission, and Values increases confidence, respect, and loyalty.
2. A Strategic Plan increases all four elements in MR's framework above.
3. Good Architecture (clarity in all definitions) is an objective quality building confidence and respect

Further...

4. The Vertical Dimension: Portfolio, Program, and Project Management ensures that the change activities do well down through the organization
5. The Horizontal Dimension: Governance and Accountability ensures that all key players commit and are accountable
6. Assigning Resources ensures enough muscle and brain to do the job
7. Change Management Process ensures that the outputs we control are delivered and, through feedback, ensures that the outcomes we desire are achieved.

A key factor in all of this planning is that successful change is a matter of an existing system becoming a new system. The change alters the system. It must do so without interfering with the system's basic stability and function. And yet it must move the system through instability to a new stable state.

Initial subjective reactions usually fit the "don't rock the boat" model if the incumbent system is currently seen as working well. Then the challenge is to show that we can *turn* the boat (or install a bigger engine) without *tipping* the boat.

If players see the current situation as bad, then initial reactions are, "we've got to change something, but how do we know your change is the right one? In this case, being able to show that we are solving the right problem and that our solution will work will give confidence.

So, 4 tips in QTI's approach:
- Prepare in terms of all 7 frameworks before you open your mouth. (That sounds like a lot, but once one understands the frameworks, much of it is intuitive, and can be done in somewhere between a blink and two hours. Malcolm and I have an ongoing dialog about how much preparation time is needed, and how much strategy can be done "on the go.")
- Know the difference between the *outputs* your team can produce under your control and the *outcomes* that you desire from the whole organization or social system.
- Listen before trying to influence. You have to know where someone stands before you try to get him or her to move.
- Validate resistance. There are five types of resistance, and four of them are healthy. (To see the five types of resistance, read page 268 of my book, Quality Management Demystified.) You can get more information about the book and this approach by contacting me, Sid Kemp, at sid@qualitytechnology.com.

Posted by: Sid Kemp at January 14, 2007 6:27 AM

Post a comment