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.

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.