Our Blog: "The LAST Word on Change"

Will Your Best Change Management Be Sabotaged in 2011? (Part 1 of 2)

Tweet

 

I’m launching 2011 with a compelling 2-part discussion of what an on-line correspondent called a “taboo” issue in organizational change—Change Sabotage.  Today, I’ll illustrate the problem and some tactics for responding to it; then next week, I’ll post Part II, aimed at avoiding the problem altogether…

Perhaps the most subversive form of resistance involves actively or passively

chipping away at trust & confidence to create what I call “Alliances of Doubt.”

Ever wonder how, in the middle of a contested discussion, you find yourself in an unexpected and uncomfortable place (taking alternative position, morphing from the intended theme, feeling unexpectedly defensive)?  The same feeling can be experienced by even the best Change Leaders.  One reason why there is such a strong emphasis on communication and struggles over control during a change initiative is because control of the message is critical.  I just spent the holiday week participating in a Linked-in (on-line community) discussion about whether active sabotaging of change initiatives is a real phenomenon.  Regardless of what you call it, there’s a very real activity that unfolds in many changing organizations that erodes support and slows progress (minimum) and even derails the initiative (worst).

What does Change Sabotage look like?  Examples:        

_Department head unsatisfied with the change (or those involved) limits data or feeds inaccurate data to the project team or its consultants;

_Division Presidents or group managers say they will allow a fair test of a new practice, but fail to divest from past practice--actually allowing both new and old to occur (e.g., old dogs don't have to change);

_Sponsor hedges bets on new v. old (or any competing) practice so that s/he can throw h/her identity behind the perceived winner and remain in good stead w/top brass;

_Individuals compete (bet this audience has NEVER seen this one, right?! hah, hah...) over change process, language, accountabilities, etc. delaying progress and wearing down support for a change they don't like; and believe it or not…

_The Project Manager h/herself can (among other things) sabotage the initiative by controlling participation and evaluation by limiting the flow of information, over-stating progress, discounting concerns raised by stakeholders, or shielding h/her team or consultant from criticism.  Perhaps the most common (rarely admitted, but costly) form of sabotage by PMs is to allow the initiative to fail in some ways because it validates their assignment of blame for lack of progress or failure to produce desired results.

The Effect?...”An Alliance of Doubt.”  Many of these examples have a similar effect.  As a champion of simplifying change, I would argue that OBFUSCATION and MISDIRECTION are the #1 and #2 oft-used tools of change saboteurs.  They keep calling out issues and objections that serve to create a pile of angst built on uncertainty—their goal is to chip away at confidence by raising (even previously dismissed) doubts and emphasizing risks "that the Change Team has not fully considered.

NOTE: there are ways to directly combat change and compete in the arena of ideas/solutions, but cowards tend to favor indirect methods and applaud themselves for such "cleverness"--though many of us know how to constructively mitigate this impact.

So…What does this mean for the Change Leader?  When you pick up on signals of struggle to control the message in a changing organization, start by trying to identify the specific problem.  The best place to start looking for ANY solution is within, i.e., with your own behavior as Change Leader.  While you may never see yourself sabotaging your own initiative, ALL of the examples here are best served by starting by looking at yourself, then others:

*ASK, “What am I doing that’s fostering or allowing that behavior to dominate.”

*ASK, “What is the source of this message?  What is the originator’s intent?  Is there a conflict with h/her public sentiment?”

*CHALLENGE YOURSELF and your team: “Where are our own messages INCOMPLETE or sending MIXED SIGNALS that allow for more clear and concise messages that drive doubt or even fear to take hold?”

*STEP UP monitoring of others who are acting as your agents of influence (e.g., the sponsor, your consultants, others) to ensure that they do not allow their own agenda or doubt to flavor their own communications or add to mixed signals (and address their doubts…).

*Pose this problem to KEY STAKEHOLDERS (not just an “inner-circle”) in an unemotional, matter-of-fact way framed as a concern for your own communication shortfalls and overall project success.  They will provide more objective observations about what signals they receive, how they are communicated, and how they contribute to confidence/doubt…action/inaction…trust/mistrust.

Can Change Sabotage be avoided all together?  Is there a “systems” or process solution to incorporate in your change management?  Watch this space for Part II of this discussion later this week.

Spoiler Alert:  “Yes!”

Interested in more on the topic?  Here are a couple of widely read resources for Change Leaders by John Kotter and Peter Block that address this form of resistance:

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Iceberg-Melting-Succeeding-Conditions/dp/031236198X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1294080120&sr=1-1