Open Letters to Everyone Involved in Change
(Part 1)

by Jojo Fresnedi

Dear Everyone,

To say that 2009 was a difficult year is a gross understatement. Some of us lost our jobs, along with a big chunk of our savings and investments. Those of us who kept our jobs found ourselves in roles that have been restructured, now doing more for the same pay or worse, with a pay cut. Some of us moved to other workplaces, but carried over the fear and anxiety that the same thing that happened to our former organizations could also happen to our new ones. There were a few brave ones amongst us: those who started their own businesses, struggled in the process, prayed for the economy to swing up quickly. Jeff Imelt, GE’s CEO, called it right when he said this isn’t the normal business cycle of going down, then going up. What this requires, he said, is a RESET. By that he meant: CHANGE – radical, profound change in just about everything that affects you and me. 
But don’t panic. There’s plenty of help around. Because change has been with us forever, a number of thoughtful people have already studied change; developed frameworks, tools, and processes; and helped many individuals and organizations implement and cope with it. We also have our own experiences to bank on. We’ve been through change, in all its shapes and sizes, in various roles and capacities, in different places and time periods. We survived. More importantly, we learned a few things. What I want to do with these letters is to point out to you (or at least help you remember) the things you must think about, do, and watch out for when you’re engaged in change. One of the thrills I experienced when I used to play basketball was making timely, artful passes to teammates. Think of these letters as assists, gift passes to help you make winning shots. 

                                                  ______________________________

When someone wants my advice regarding change, one of the first things I ask is: What role are you playing?

It’s important to establish this at the get go because how you’ll see things and what you need to do depend upon the role you play. Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Barry Stein, and Todd Jick made this very clear in The Challenge of Organizational Change: How Companies Experience It and Leaders Guide It. People who manage change – they called them Change Makers – generally play three broad roles: change strategists, change recipients, and change implementers. Change Strategists identify the need for change, spell out the vision or desired outcome, provide the resources, and appoint the people who will implement the change. They’re often the top leaders of the firm. Change Recipients cover those who must adapt to and adopt the change. These are the people whose mindsets, behaviour and attitudes must change. They’re usually the largest group in the firm. Cynics call them change victims, but they’re the ones who actually determine if the change will hold. Change Implementers (or change agents) are the ones tasked to make the change happen. They manage the day-to-day process of change. They’re people in the middle: they respond to the demands of the change strategists above and the reactions of the change recipients below.

The Change Makers always see eye-to-eye and constantly communicate. They plan together and coordinate execution. Change happens quickly, efficiently, painlessly. Vision fulfilled, targets met. Everyone’s happy. “Yeah, right,” my kids would say when they sense I’m putting them on. “Dream on,” they add. True. In reality, what happens couldn’t be more different because the views of the Change Makers are often in conflict:

• The Strategists are impatient for action and pushes the implementers to minimize (what looks to them as) time-consuming steps. The Recipients report that they are insufficiently consulted, informed, heard, and involved. And when things break down, the Implementers regretfully reflect, “I thought they(strategists and recipients alike) understood and support the change.”

• Strategists are notorious for going straight to the recipients – and bypassing the Implementers. Implementers, on the other hand, frequently decide to modify the direction of the change – without getting the Strategists’ endorsement. Meanwhile, both of them ignore or underestimate the impact of change on the Recipients.

• Strategists anxiously await and test for positive results. They follow up all the time. Implementers fight daily fires, interruptions, and obstacles that normally accompany change efforts. They have to do all that on top of doing their “real” jobs. Recipients perceive conflicting signals about what is important. They see confusion everywhere. 

Because of these conflicting perspectives, I find it critical to pull together the Change Makers in a workshop. (Of course, it isn’t practical to invite all the Change Recipients, but their key representatives should be present.) Apart from discussing the rationale, direction, and the nature of the change, it is important to ensure that everyone gains an understanding of the dynamic relationships they’ll find themselves in and the tension they may create, and to establish the “rules of engagement” from the start. As Change Makers perceive, so they behave. The workshop enables them to simulate and practice seeing where the others are, or would be, as the change effort progresses.

Now that you know what the three roles are, I would like to provide some leads that are specific to each role. I’ll start with the Change Strategists.

                                     __________________________________ 
              

Dear Change Strategists,

Kurt Lewin, often called the father of modern social psychology, once said, “There is nothing as practical as a good theory.” I fully agree. In my work as a change consultant, I find that the Change Strategists who have a good grasp of change as a process (in other words, in possession of “a good theory”) invariably stayed longer and fared better in pursuing the change that they wanted. Staying longer is important because most change efforts require more time than we initially think. Many companies who “quit” on the change they embarked on did not do so at the start nor at the middle, but at the point where, if they persisted just a little longer, they would have succeeded. The Strategists with a good theory fared better because they’re more aware of the phases to follow. They recognized that critical mistakes in any of the phases could have devastating impact, slow down momentum, and erase hard-won gains.

The “good theory” that I find most helpful is John Kotter’s 8-Stage Model, which you can find in his book Leading Change. It’s based on years of solid research, speaks directly to our experience, easy to understand and explain. I’ve been using it as guide for years. Here are the 8 Stages and my insights for each one:

• Establish a sense of urgency. People don’t change simply because there’s “a better way,” especially if the status quo is working for them. For people to change, they need to learn and believe that it’s more dangerous to stay where they are than move to where you want them to. Strategists need to sell the problem before they sell the change. To do so, you should make them aware of untapped opportunities or potential crises. This isn’t an easy task. Never underestimate the difficulty of driving people from their comfort zones, and/or becoming paralyzed by perceived risks. You may need to create a burning platform.

• Form a powerful guiding coalition. The top leader can’t do it alone. He or she must put together a group with shared commitment and political will to lead the change effort. (The members of the guiding coalition are the Change Strategists.) It’s easy to believe that since the senior people are in charge, everything will be fine. But there are common mistakes at this stage. Sometimes, the appointed coalition members do not work well as a team and therefore undervalue the importance of this kind of coalition. Sometimes, the group assigns team leadership to an HR or strategic planning executive rather than a senior line manager. Nothing against HR (full disclosure: I’m an HR guy!) or strategic planning, but I learned from experience that no matter how capable or dedicated the staff head, groups without strong line leadership never achieves the power to push things ahead.

• Create a vision. Aristotle once said, “The soul never thinks without a picture.” A vision is that picture, the destination of the journey you’re inviting them to embark on. In the change workshops that I lead, I usually show a picture of an old man warming himself in front of a painting of a fire. That’s what a good vision is: it’s not real (yet), but you can already feel its warmth. An important tip: the vision must be clear, compelling, and concise. How do you test for those qualities? Kotter said, “If you can’t communicate the vision in five minutes or less, and get a reaction that signifies both understanding and interest, you are not done.” Finally, a vision alone is not enough; you must develop strategies to realize it. 

• Communicate a vision. Use every medium possible to communicate the new vision and the strategies for achieving it. You can have posters, videos, newsletters, wallet cards, etc., but the more powerful vehicle is face-to-face forums, starting with the guiding coalition and continued by line leaders. These are not one-way, broadcast sessions. There should be Q&A’s and plenty of interaction. The most powerful signal, however, is behavioural modelling from the top leaders and the guiding coalition. Remember: people follow what leaders do, not what they say. Do something inconsistent with the vision and you lose credibility. One more thing. Communication is not a one-time event. A line manager once told me, “I feel like a broken record here, saying the same thing over and over.” I told him he was on the right track. Keep saying it and the people start believing it.

• Empower others to act on the vision. If the vision is exciting, some employees will take the initiative to develop ideas and try new approaches. As long as their action fits the overall vision, they should be encouraged. However, for progress to continue, active removal of obstacles is required. Sometimes, the obstacles are structural, like a policy or a narrow job description or a compensation system that unwittingly creates “competing commitments,” situations where employees are forced to choose between the new vision and their own self-interest. Other times, the obstacles are human, like a senior executive who pays lip service to the change, but makes demands that run counter to the overall effort. This is a test for the guiding coalition. Failure to act in time will undermine the change effort. Employees are always watching; they will feel lied to, and become cynical. The whole initiative will collapse if you don’t do anything. 

• Plan for and create short-term wins. You must identify and ensure performance improvements. Quickly and visibly. You must also recognize and reward the employees who contributed to those improvements. This is also about managing signals and meaning. The quick wins build momentum, enhance your standing, and convince more followers. The messages are: “We’re doing what we told you. Look, we’re making progress. Our vision is right. Let’s carry on.” Quick wins also serve as a model for the new behavioural norms. “This is the way we want you to do things.” Failure to score successes early enough dampens enthusiasm and emboldens the nay-sayers who are lurking in the corners just waiting to shout, “Gotcha! We told you so!”

• Consolidate improvements and produce more change. Use increased credibility from early wins to change systems, structures, and policies which undermine the vision. Promote, develop, and hire people who can implement the vision. Re-charge the change process by coming up with new projects. As mentioned earlier, change can take more time than originally planned, so you may have to replace some change agents as well. Kotter identified possible pitfalls here, like “declaring victory too soon – with the first performance improvement, and allowing resisters to convince the ‘troops’ that the war has been won.” Both pitfalls are dangerous; they lull people into thinking that nothing more needs to be done. That’s when the backslide begins.

• Institutionalize the new approaches. Kotter points out that change only lasts when it becomes “the way we do things around here,” i.e. when it becomes part of the corporate culture. Until the new behaviours are rooted in social norms and shared values, they will disappear as soon as the pressure for change is removed. There are two things you must do. The first is to consciously link the new approaches, behaviours, and attitudes to corporate success. Don’t assume that the people will make the right connections. Never let up in the communication. The second is making sure the next generation of leaders really personifies the new approach. If the requirements for development and promotion do not change, renewal rarely lasts. As my best friend likes to say, “If you want to change the game, you must change the players.”

There are other “good theories,” of course. You should know them as well. I just want to say that the line managers I’ve worked with easily identify with this model. It kept them on track and helped them avoid potential mistakes, some of which might have unravelled the progress they’ve built. It gave them an operating guide (a checklist, one of them reported) and, equally important, a common language to discuss issues and concerns.                      

(to be continued in the January 2010 issue)