Change Management

There are some phrases that have almost become business clichés  to a point where they lose any agreed meaning. In this context “Change” is right up there alongside “Rightsizing” and “Business Process Re-engineering”. An ex colleague of mine put together a bit of a rant about change (and using Dilbert  cartoons in presentations) challenging the need for change managers. I’ve recently been reading a number of change books including Leading Change by John Kotter, Big Change by Paul Taffinder and Leaning into the Future by George Binney and Colin Williams. These writers all document successful change programmes that have resulted in sickly organisations finding their way again.

Leaving the Cheese in the fridge where it belongs, (along with the other hackyned phrase that the only constant is change), it is important to recognise that as companies service a broader external ecosystem that is constantly shifting and evolving so those companies need to adapt and evolve. Evolution is a long term process, and over time organisations do adapt to the continual changes they are subjected to.  Updated employment legislation, accounting requirements, SOX etc all required organisations to change their structures, processes and skills. In each of these areas the change requirements had clear owners in middle management who for the most part successfully guided their companies through the required adaptations. The change is at worst uncomfortable, requiring retraining, a shift in how we do things, maybe an extra report to be written each month, but with effective management and a supportive leadership perfectly acceptable results are regularly achieved.

Big change though is different.

When there is a step change in the external environment such as MP3s replacing vinyl, online retailers displacing the high street or the financial system becoming dysfunctional there develops a need for cataclysmic change, almost a Lamarkian approach to evolution rather than Darwinian. In this instance the change becomes unpleasant rather than merely uncomfortable. All successful change requires ownership, leadership and a clear vision of where it is going. But where each of these comes from can be a moot point. Ownership of change in the recent financial crisis did not appear to be coming from within the financial institutions and the vision seems to have been provided by  external government committees, leadership in some instances acquired a Teflon quality. Given the choice of change or cease to exist, the mechanisms of change inside these organisation are usually very different. In these types of situations it is common for an external change agent to be involved. Someone who will create and drive the unpleasant changes and then leave the organisation to someone else to resume business as usual operations.

Back in the real world there are many shades of gray between these extremes and the best approach for one organisation likely won’t work somewhere else. Kotter’s model for lasting change is a proven approach that focuses the entire organisation on the long term objectives, empowers the change and then demonstrates the benefits through smaller wins along the way. The board and chief exec will own the strategy and vision. Leadership, while coming from the top, will be devolved through the organisation in a way that encourages a shared direction. In this instance the role of a change manager is to enable and facilitate the change rather than own it. While not being a passive role it will ensure that the reasons for change remain understood, that the process of change is clearly communicated and that the benefits are identified and celebrated.

The key part here is to recognise that business as usual isn’t a static thing. It is a gentle Darwinian evolution that based on a clear understanding of the objectives, values and vision of the organisation ensures the continued success of the company within the external environment. Use change managers, but keep in mind who owns the strategy.