Our Blog: "The LAST Word on Change"

Ever notice that nearly every presentation of the best new thinking in any area of management science or organizational effectiveness, particularly “Change Management,” is usually joined by a promise of being most thorough, comprehensive, and complete?  What is it about man, or this field, that automatically associates volume and complexity with “better?”  It’s like life is an English paper and the only sure way to get an “A” grade is to make sure that when the professor weighs the stack of papers, it exceeds the average weight of all other submissions? 

As a tip ‘o the cap to Seth Godin, whose thoughtful, but concise style I struggle to emulate in my own blog posts, this post will be record-setting in its brevity here at LWOC!  Read on…

My research on the factors that distinguish successful from unsuccessful change initiatives has influence my writing, speaking and consulting for the last ten years.  More and more, the business world is coming ‘round to the understanding that there is a weakness in 100 years of “management science,” and a fatal flaw in the logic that prevails in strategy and consulting war rooms these days.  The reality is that: 

Last week, I posted a 3-part blog about how indecisiveness (resulting in everything being important and/or everything being hit with the “hammer” of change) is creating major fatigue in the companies I see.  I expanded on how this indecisiveness occurs, for example, by picking either (a) too many priorities; (b) no priorities; or (c) lacking the courage to put aside old priorities is a sign of failed leadership.  I also discussed 4 ways Change Leaders can overcome this.

In Parts I and II earlier this week, I posted thoughts on how endless demand to do more in today’s organizations is not merely the “New Normal,” but a failure of leadership (either the failure of strategic choice or the demand to simply make it work). 

I mentioned in Monday’s post that the good name of change management has been co-opted by two enemy tribes.  In Monday’s Part I, I discussed the first tribe:  The “Make-it-Work” Managers, whose efforts make everything important (…and when everything is important, nothing is important and change is sputters or fails).  Today, in Part II, I am describing the impact of the second enemy tribe, the “Shiny-New-Object” Executives.  Like the former tribe, these executives undermine the sustainability of change by creating unfocused, fatigued organizations.  In this case however, their weakness lies failing to make strategic choices—the tough choices that must be made to focus the organization and enable more tactical prioritization that fosters execution.

Forgive me this ONE strategic rant; please…I’m speaking for your people!  Somewhere along the way, the good name of Organizational Change, once tied to real business transformation, was co-opted by two enemy tribes:  (a) The Make-it-Work Managers; and (b) The Next-Shiny-Object Executives.  That’s a sad state that leads to misappropriation of resources and a lack of focus resulting in huge opportunity cost and repeated failure with change.  Our teams end up defining change as that condition in which they only take on MORE…not something new and inspiring.  As a result, organizations lose focus, our best talent burns out, and top management loses credibility (in an environment where everything is important, nothing is important!).

Last week, I walked past Steve Jobs’ book on display at the airport for the “umpteenth” time, but realized this time I was standing in front of it wearing my own version of Jobs’ iconic glasses and black mock-t (all similarity ends right there!).  It moved me to think about my own creativity and what it shares with Mr. Jobs.  My favorite thing about Jobs’ innovation is its simple and intuitive design.  From the operating system that first introduced a “windows” interface to the iconic Mac pc to the flywheel touchpad on the iPod to the touchscreen and utility of the iPad, I believe that the secret to Jobs’ success was intuitive design (not aesthetics or integration/connectivity). 

Participating in a Linked-in discussion forum this week, I was amazed at the technicalities and personal nuances that marked a professional group's discussion about "what we do."  For the purpose of context and disclosure, this was an "OD" (organization development) group...

Well…here’s some thinking for those who are feeling “stuck” in change (i.e., dealing with the difficult parts and wishing for a moment when the worst parts of any change experience would go away for a few hours).