Ruffle feathers Contrarianism
There is a square peg into a round hole perspective with change management that jumps out of everything I see written.
It is an approach to change that relies on pushing, coaxing, forcing, driving, convincing rather than understanding, leadership, empathy and clearly defined end states. It is a perspective that guides everything that happens in change management and it has worked its way into the executive suite. It is based on two factors straight from Kotter (whose approach has a strangle hold on the change management community and by extension their clients).
Overcoming resistance
Creating urgency
Two of the comments from the McKinsey series of CEO interviews on leading change:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/qnwhn7
Julio Linares says that, for him, the most important and hardest part of the transformation was “to convince people of the need for the program.” (Convince being the polite word for overcoming resistance)
N. R. Narayana Murthy, chairman of the board and former chief executive of India’s Infosys, agrees and says, “The first responsibility of a leader is to create mental energy among people so that they enthusiastically embrace the transformation.” (“Mental energy being a code word for a sense of urgency)
As P&G CEO Alan G. Lafley says, in “Leading change: An interview with the CEO of P&G,” “Excruciating repetition and clarity are important …”(which likely feels excruciating)
And there is more in the story that is guided by the status quo.
- The use of story. I agree great, but after clear end states have been formulated, stakeholder connections have been made and strategy has been clearly connected to. The kid in us responds to stories; the adult responds to connection to something bigger.
- There is clearly a “build the team, make clear responsibilities perspective” and a hierarchical transfer down the chain. Not once is the word “stakeholder” used. Employee is but that has a different meaning.
- Words and phrases like, “getting on board”, “expected”, “undesired behavior”
Where in the process is the connection to stakeholders that defines the end state and therefore creates a picture (not a story) of the change? With that picture individuals (crucial point here since the McKinsey articles insists on teams) effected can place themselves in the change by virtue of their skills, their value to the whole and the rewards and connection they will get from enthusiastic participation.
There is a push pull toward change management between business/people and group/individual. With the status quo business and group overpower the individual and therefore people. To break the status quo would be to show the business connection to the individual which will almost automatically begin to create teams who will then have their own built in urgency to move toward success. A subtle difference in perspective and approach but one that, if adopted by any of those CEO’s would change the semantics, change the energy and change the results (and faster and cheaper).