“it’s very easy to get addicted to the change pattern by not getting the change right in the first place, not making the tough calls or bold decisions up-front, maybe going for something half-way, and then allowing things to slip back.” BP’s Fiona MacLeod (maybe not timely to quote BP, but every organization has a silver lining within) http://tinyurl.com/mewr9p
Change and addiction strung together seems a contradiction to me. It insinuates change is a bad thing. I suppose serial change makes little sense if it is not rooted in reality and sustainability. There, I admitted it might be possible (the first step in conquering addiction- ha).
Take a look at the above link. It is a great example of a realistic change perspective, illustrates a little nitty gritty of the engagement Fiona sponsored, has nothing negative (but talks about how to address potential negatives) was human and business oriented at the same time and, we assume, ended at the end state with sustainability. RARE (note the capital letters).
We will let the link, the project and the content stand on its own and address the “addiction” part.
Here are the ways I see this manifested-
External Consulting Firms
Here you find the most likely culprits. They must be addicted to “change” because that is how they make their money. The more change, the more confusion, the more need for them, the more revenue. My dig here would be the more they are part of the picture the more the whole cycle perpetuates itself. The bigger the firm the more perpetual the endless (and stationary) change.
But aren’t we shooting our own foot here?
Ah, I said firms.
Independent consultants with few or no employees, while probably being addicted to change in their own way, are not in the habit of useless change perpetuation. Maybe they are weekend change fanatics- to extend our metaphor. Their revenue comes from value and perhaps the small teams that they create (and work with and mentor). Their future revenue comes from referrals, testimonials and success.
They can help ease you out of the addiction into a reasonable, moderate level of change intake.
Internal Grass Roots Change
Culprit number two. This tends to sprout and spread because the internal change practitioners (or worse someone who is newly pretending to be one) want their approach, their method and them to win over the organization. With our current dead career ladders this is becoming all too common (to the tune of 27 different approaches at one Fortune 50 firm I can think of).
The second version of this is a partnership of our first category and our second (I can hear the fingernails on the chalkboard now). An outside firm (not always the big ones in this case, more often the (one)s who heavily market their own specific approach) feeds the internal power grabber some content sure to start the addiction and away they go together on an evangelical crusade to convert the entire organization.
Executives with Grand Vision(s)
I am the last one to take the grand visions away from the executives, but there is a translation to reality for some. If they do not have a right hand person, or a trusted external advisor/consultant to make the translation the visions are just fancy dreams. When it becomes serial in an organization is either one executive with many visions (and eager followers) or many executives all over the organization each with their own version of the dream.
Staffing Firms
My pet peeve. They are in the business of getting bodies on the ground (not unlike the huge consulting organizations). Since competition (thankfully) is becoming brutal for them the chance of being picked for the next engagement is slim. So the “bodies” mentality is to get the first win as big as possible and do whatever you can to keep the pattern going. Notice I mentioned nothing about the work or the results.
It is just too easy to ask them to go find people (like using a real estate agent for free for all the house hunting- in fact compare the two…). They convince you as they are pouring the Kool Aid that they find the best long before any other method.
Scapegoating
Let’s face it everyone thinks change “fails 70% of the time” (the dumbest stat I think I have ever seen and certainly not the least bit helpful to anyone). So just in case failure is a possibility why not wrap the whole thing up as a change imitative, then you will have built in blame- not your own.
This has gotten extreme enough that regular operational projects, the kind that happen all the time, are labeled as change initiatives. Hey if it works for the one of tweaks why not use the scapegoat for Everything!
Change is here to stay as they say. And it is necessary to stay ahead and to improve. It is the basis of growing and adapting business. But like wine on the weekend it is best taken at an enjoyable manageable level.
