Two change management analogies I like

Over the past few years, managing change in organisations has fascinated me both academically and professionally. And often the humanistic universality of the subject has meant much reflection beyond work. Let's face it, influence and behavioural change is not too far from the daily romantic, platonic and even transactional exchanges.

Has my understanding 'changed'?

Many textbooks and consulting frameworks have covered change. From the draconian and controlled to the most chaos-assumed and humanistic. A Google search on the string "Change Management" yields over five million results. I won't stand to repeat any of these. However, in using these models, I find that it can be very easy to apply these in a superficial way. I find what is often missing here is the fundamental mindset required for anyone involved in planning and executing change.

Lately, the solution for this missing piece seems to have come to me in the form of behavioural economics. The idea of designing a choice environment where individual users have perceived autonomy, whilst contributing still to the intended change outcome is indeed very appealing. While it may be Machiavellian, this thinking immediately alters the way initiatives are developed and sequenced as change interventions.

Why analogies?

Working with operational managers has taught me that change is often a very intellectual concept. We know current and future states, we know the project plan. However to get change right, it needs to be an emotive and behavioral concept. With pressure of doing the day job, clutter of project plans, structure diagrams and various other organisational artifacts to distract, thinking and strategising based on behavioural and emotional responses is often non-existent. In these cases, analogies of change can help refocus the initiatives planned and implemented to be more humanistic. Designed with more consideration for this "freedom of choice".

Here are my two favourite analogies:

The potty training analogy - it's all about incentives
Earlier on in my career, I often wonder why change programs based on technology implementations are often resented. By the same token, I have always been baffled by the non-attractiveness of well-designed tools. I now realise that the execution of these are often not ordered correctly.

Let's say that mum has to potty-train Billy. There are a number of options mum can take 1) Process - develop a set of instructions for using the toilet, 2) System and tools - put in place a stool in front of the toilet to allow Billy to reach the bowl, 3) Performance incentives - provide reward and punishment in the form of candy for example. In the technology implementation example, the order is often 2, 1 and 3. So mum puts the stool in front of the toilet, tells Billy to use it and then punishes Billy for not doing the right thing. In this case, it is highly likely the change will occur begrudgingly and Billy will resent the stool as impediment to his reward.

A more effective strategy would be for mum to implement the right incentives to reward or punish toilet using behaviour and put Billy through a process of self problem solving. After a few moments of trying, Billy will more than likely seek instructions on how to use to toilet then try again. He may then find that he can't reach the bowl and request a stool be made available to him. In this case, the process and tool seems to be provided because it was Billy's idea. He will more than likely see these things as enablers rather than barriers to his reward. A very different dynamic to the former.

I am by no means suggesting that the order of incentive, process and tool is the best solution in organisational change scenarios. Nor am I recommending the above way of bring up children. But I think what is necessary is this level of critical and complete thinking to make sure planned initiatives achieve the best change results from a humanistic perspective. Organisation are different, certain cultures may lean towards systems and tools as the change leader. However, arriving at this decision based on ignorant following of framework rather than a consciously evaluated decision can be highly dangerous.

The amoeba analogy - plan for multi-variance
A second analogy is probably a result of my background in risk management. I find managers often get too caught up in the processual change management, and as a consequence lose sight of the "what if" scenario based thinking.

The amoeba analogy derives from the AtKisson innovation diffusion game. The game makes analogy to the process of cell mitosis when an innovation idea is propagated through an organisation. This analogy presents a very real reminder that organisational change is a very organic process with resistance, feedback, conflict and individual differences. Messaging and delegated selling is everything, and nothing should really be taken for granted. Whilst it might be difficult to plan exactly for various feedback and reshaping required along the change process, managers do need to be prepared for responding. This analogy, and in particular running the game as an exercise often reinforces that mindset.

Playing God?

The fundamental error managers make in change management planning is that success is only indicated by the right outcome. Usually, narrowly defined to be some financial achievement. While that might be true ultimately, the quality of change decisions should more accurately be judged by the quality of the process with which these decisions are arrived at. By simply applying a framework in a superficial way to string together a range of initiatives without delving into the emotional and behavioural aspects of the organisation, the decision making process is far from quality.

Playing God in organisations is near impossible, managers cannot guarantee the outcome of change processes. However, by paying attention to the inputs through thinking reflectively with the help of analogies, planned outcomes may be more likely on budget and on time.

Tradable broadband allocation

Short post today...

In Australia (where I live), ISPs generally have limits on the monthly subscription of brandband Internet (cap). Which is a huge pain in the arse because you have to essentially ration what you use. The problem arises when there are multiple self-serving individuals on your network, each wanting to maximise their individual net usage.

Exceeding the limit is meaningful because the "punishments" are just annoying enough to care. There is generally one of two consequences:

1. the connection slows down to 256k (traffic shaping) or
2. there is a ridiculous charge per MB used etc.

The main sufferers for this problem is probably the following two segments:

1. families with multiple teenagers and 
2. housesharing uni students.

My idea is essentially based on using "tradable rights to use" to fix this tragedy-of-the-commons resource problem (see management of fisheries). Essentially I propose the following:

• Now that households are increasingly having 1 computer each person, within the management console of the router / modem, there can be a module to set the monthly overall limit and then allocate monthly limits by MAC address.
• There should be a function to set sizes of tradable "bundles", for example 10mbs per bundle, and each bundle is then assigned to a set currency determined and agreed by the household (ie 1 carwash = 2 bundles).
• Each computer then has a client module where individual users can engage in exchange with some oversight from the administrator (parent).

The benefits would be tremendous I think!

• Parents and fellow housemates win because there's less argument in the household.
• Kids learn about how resource problems work and learn a little about economic solutions (have you tried to ask a teenager what carbon trading is?)
• Modem makers can successfully differentiate their product as a family friendly (we help you do parenting! or allocate tasks between housemates).
• Chores get done argument free.

Basically its a total win! and knowing something about programming, it should be easy to put together. It's a basic third year assignment, not even an honours thesis.

What do you think?

PS. Uploading this on a 256k connection as I write...

The trouble with environmental consumerism

With the backdrop of Gillard's stance to favour industry, and Obama's bill running out of steam, something about this supposed battle against climate change just doesn't smell right. Four years on from Gore's game changing An Inconvenient Truth, public opinion on climate change is increasingly divided and nonchalant. The balance of power seems to have shifted to what industry wants rather than what the public demand.

Despite a small rebound from January to June (due possibly to BP and signs of economic recovery), US public opinion on climate change seems to be moving in the opposite direction of scientific evidence. While some may suggest US climate change denial is no surprise when the country is still baffled by "evolution", other western countries like UK has seen similar trends. Closer to home, climate seems to be less and less talked about in everyday conversation, and Gillard's recent public consultation proposal met cynicism rather than overwhelming interest.

All alarming developments - as by my estimation, consumer awareness and action is the big difference maker in this cultural change.

Why is the public caring less?
Theories on waning public opinion seems to point to a combination of general confusion and perceived lack of urgency. Causes include:

1. The politicising of climate through rhetoric is distracting. Misinformation such as "30% of scientists question the validity of climate change" is catalyst to this confusion. These statistics sample anyone with a degree in science (even I've got one!), and not the pinnacle researchers in the field. With these so called "facts" in the rhetoric, it becomes hard to keep the most passionate focused. (ed Climategate here and here)
   
2. The "observing" nature of climate science leaves the public unsatisfied. Unlike biology or chemistry, lab work on climate is difficult due to the system complexity. Meanwhile, observing real world validation of theories take a long time, and even when concluded upon, is subject to debate as observations evolve. Examples of this include the ocean conveyor belt theory, increasing ice in Antarctica, as well as the ozone hole discussion. Adding to this, substituting technologies such as geoengineering further exacerbates the perception that the situation is perhaps not as dire.
   
3. The predicted effects of climate change pales in comparison to more immediate issues. Dan Ariely, behavioural economist at Duke suggests that people are irrationally biased toward instant gratification particularly when the object is abstract. An example is how individuals choose to smoke or drink drive without a calculated consideration for premature death. The notion of death seems abstract when the decision is made, as it does not present a real, relatable and immediate experience. In climate change, the threat of apocalypse seems tailor-made for low priority. It is distant in time and space and difficult to even visualise (ie more abstract than premature death).
4. Individuals seek meaning in defending a comfortable social status quo. Sociologists call this "system justification" - a desire to feel security in the social order, and a need to perceive existing social relations as fair and legitimate. Climate policy attempts to suggest that there is an immorality with the current "business as usual", persuading individuals to question economic and lifestyle decisions in a wholesale way. Without a clear picture of impending doom, any effort to educate and persuade away from this "justified system" becomes unconvincing.
   

Even when they CARE, why don't they ACT?
Furthering this problem is that even when individuals are converted in attitude, behaviour doesn't necessarily follow. The lack of reinforcement through behaviour makes any attitudinal change shallow and forgettable. Reasons for this include:

1. Environmental behaviour is more ego than eco. "Green" behaviour is often practiced for the purpose of supporting ego or conforming to social norms rather than on the basis of genuine environmental concern. Research suggests that individuals overstate their environmental behaviour and support only visible activities (ie driving a Prius). Driving hybrid cars and recycling also doesn't necessarily carry over to green consumption elsewhere.
   
2. Consumers are less than consciously engaged when consuming green. Green consumption seems to be habitual and substitutable. Research suggests that recycling at home is more common where individuals recycle in their workplace. Individuals also interchange one form of green consumption for another, such a cycling to work when recycling less as some sort of bargaining with mother earth.
3. There is a perception of hopelessness in individual action. Due to the scale of the climate problem and the next-to-no perceived effect of an isolated act, the feedback mechanisms to encourage green behaviour are absent. For instance, $1-a-day charities work because individuals can see real tangible effects of their action. (The growth of the child through letters and pictures).
   
4. There is no advantage in being the first mover. Green consumption behaviour is predicated on the behaviours of others. A fundamental problem in reversing the tragedy-of-the-commons scenario.

Why is it important to get consumers to be green?
The recent BP example (and their avoidance of any major punishment in light of some serious violations of public trust) points to the ineffectiveness of the compliance driven model for governing organisations. "Doing the bare minimum" ultimately does not change the profit maximising orientation to a social-benefit maximising one. As organisations get bigger and more global, governments are increasingly incentivized to curtail to the organisation's interests. The concern is that if the US is having this sort of trouble fighting the battle against an incorporated organisation, what chances do the minnows have?

Meanwhile, recent corporate investment on sustainability as more or less a marketing function is encouraging. Ironically much of BP's manoeuvres to "manage" their image (while risking individual and corporate credibility) is driven by this need to satisfy a more media savvy and environmentally conscious public. So it seems the only way to raise the "bare minimum" is to put the power in the hands of the consumer, to align the profit and social targets for organisations from the bottom up.

So the solution...?
Social frameworks need to refocus from enforcing compliance on organisations to empowering consumers to make the right choices. If cultural change within organisations starts with people, then is not a focus on consumer rather than organisation logical in the context of societal cultural change? And if it is truly about cultural change, then methods to holistically engage cultural dialogue (ie calling on artists, authors and poets to contribute) also need to be considered for their merits. (RE: the positive effects of science fiction on scientific development).

Meanwhile in more direct actions, the recent publication by the UK Institute for Government MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy is a really interesting development in the way public policy is thought about. What's apparent is a recognition that society and its consuming individuals need better solutions than the compliance and punishment models to change behaviour, particularly in seemingly harmless activities (ie littering). Needed are creative methods to be able to link the cause and effect of individual action, through better representation of cost to, or more immediate reward for, the individual (actors in banana costumes in the littering example).

Ariely also talks about using "% of planned holiday" rather than dollars in thinking about opportunity costs when trying to control spending on trivial daily vices. This makes the trade-off more realistic and effective to deter unwanted behaviour. So what is a better currency for green consumption? Seconds to annihilation? minutes to no water? There's a PhD thesis in this I think... Whatever it is, it has to be better than counting carbon...

Social changes impacting management today

One recent development I have noticed is the increasing successes of "collaboration" and "activism" both online and off. These developments seem to suggest the beginnings of another shift in the collective consciousness, redefining acceptable social norms. They also point to significant implications for managers – in way of opportunities or threats, depending on your political persuasion.

What these examples call for is perhaps realignment in the assumptions of human behaviour used in developing management systems, away from the neo-classical economic "self-serving man" back towards the anthropological idea of "co-operative monkeys".

So what are the trends?

1) We’re seeing a change in the way trust is bestowed. Swaptrading websites such as Swaptree.com, and suburban car sharing services like GoGet in Australia are beginning to test the honesty policy more and more. With Swaptree for example, we’re starting to see the changeover from the use of money to user feedback or internet reputation as a currency for engaging in trusted exchanges. Almost doing away with the "you pay first, I'll send goods later" cynicism built into the eBay + Paypal model.

2) Collaboration is becoming more purposeful and altruistic. Websites such as Ushahidi.com and iPhone applications such as Aus Traffic are extending collaborative models which until recently have been reserved for more technical disciplines (ie open-source software, Wikipedia). These platforms create a means to encourage users to submit bits of information to create a story which is much more valuable than its parts. The use of social media seems to be also shifting from "sharing information" to "doing things or building knowledge together". As such, news stories such as the Sichuan earthquakes in 2008 first developed on Twitter, something unthinkable in a state-controlled media environment years ago. Similarly, activist website Wikileaks is perhaps the ultimate vehicle for appealing to the innate altruism of individuals. Couple all these factors with increasing social knowledge of environmental degradation (eg BP, palm oil), corporate misbehaviour and economic crisis, “best interests of society” is all of a sudden more in conflict with rules of organisations and governments. It is perhaps ironic that as we grow more trusting of each other across the internet, we grow less trusting of the formal social structures.

3) The increasing professionalization in the way social media is used. Instead of disclosure of individual information ("I just ate a massive breakfast"), social media is increasingly being used in the professional setting ("We just implemented a risk management tool"). This seems to point to a growing comfort with the medium as it matures. We’ve seen Twitter become more professionally used and LinkedIn offer status update functionality. Inducing perhaps a blurring for individuals in judging what is "private", what is "commercially confidential" and what is "public". Judgement that is particularly difficult when overwhelmed by excitement and enthusiasm, in that instant of writing.

So what does this all mean?

For managers, this creates renewed debate between the X and Y schools of managing individuals. My professional background is in information security and human resources. As such, I am sympathetic to both the innately positive and negative assumptions of humans.

I genuinely think both these assumptions are valid and shouldn't be overlooked when developing strategies to manage a workforce that is challenged and perhaps confused about what new social behaviours are acceptable in the workplace. One thing that continuously baffles me however is that so many practicing human resources don't necessarily evolve their basic assumptions over time as what is socially “right” change. An interesting example is the contrast between the social outrage when Bill Clinton’s US presidential campaign was challenged by his alleged marijuana use in his youth. While Obama openly admitted his experimentation of cocaine in his book, prior to his run for presidency. As such, rules need to be reviewed and rewritten to manage the risks of evolving social attitudes.

On the flipside, as an enabler, this social development is exactly what many scientists and philanthropists (including Bill Gates) ordered. Many claim that there’s an impending urgency to innovate, one which is closely associated with the survival of our planet and species. In this context, collaboration across organisations, breaking down and questioning the validity of intellectual property boundaries may just be a relevant and good evolutionary gift. I point to the open innovation concept and the open-sourcing of ideas such as the "Why Not?" exchange.

So who ultimately needs to win?

I'd like to think of the organisational experience managers give to their staff is very much like parenting. Good parenting has benefits beyond the parent-child relationship. I'd suggest that values which one holds, and behaviours one exhibits (both in and outside of the organisation) are significantly shaped by what is learnt through working, particularly early in the career. Individuals with good managers also wind up being better managers themselves. So in economic terms, I believe good management has tremendous positive externalities that reach well beyond the walls of the organisation itself.

What this suggests is the need for a renewed management conscience - from the very top of the organisation, to the guy in charge of the team of burger flippers. I believe this conscience needs to be an informed and educated one. Encapsulating concerns for the environment, sustainability and geo-politics at the top of the pyramid, and concerns for human understanding, family and individual circumstances at the bottom. To a broader extent, these values should influence the formulation of social policy also in governments.

Sure, we can still use adversarial type of models to model behaviour and decisions (ie game theory), but the attitude for managers need to be one of enabling. So what does it come down to? I believe the ability to lead is key. Policies and procedures, tools and checklists, firewalls and standards can only do so much, but if social boundaries are continued to be pushed at this increasing pace, the investment should be on leadership capability, rather than administrative or monitoring systems.

Information security folk have been saying it for years people are the weakest link, but that perspective should perhaps be flipped - management is never really good enough to win the "hearts and minds" of individuals and create that culture of reasoned judgement. Isn't that what good parenting strives for?...

So what’s good leadership? Well… that’s a story for another day.

Why this blog?

Having recently graduated from an MBA degree and currently working for a large organisation. I'd like to reserve a space to record some of my learnings and observations. I think I experience epiphanies on a daily basis, whether due to work, regular readings or situations which I observe from afar.

One thing I want to declare from the outset is that I am by no means claiming my MBA was a waste of time. The "Taylorism" and other such theories help shape a philosophy for organisations and its management which has ultimately influenced my perceptions of the world at large. My only gripe is that not enough attention is paid in class to the global appeal or application of these theories, perhaps even to what is current and what is daily life.

My keen interest in all of this is human behaviour. I don't have a background in psychology, anthropology or other such -ologies, but I do enjoy debate and discussion on such topics.

I try to learn as much as I can on a daily basis and hope this blog can try to bubble these learnings together. Regardless of whether these are result of experience, readings, stories heard or my own philosophical ponders...