“The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people’s limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true.” “Blind Men and an Elephant”, Wikipedia
There are intermittent, and often rancorous, debates as to whether “Change Management is Dead”, “Change Leadership vs Change Management”, “Change Management vs Organization Development” and other such challenges that pit different approaches against each other. What if we are all correct but we are speaking about different things?
Please bear in mind that this is a learning journal where I collect my current thoughts — prior posts will reflect an earlier mindset and this is a work in progress. .
My Journey (in progress) for context
In 2011 when I became a proud Founding Member of The Association of Change Management Professionals (ACMP) — and The Change Management Institute (CMI) was 7 years old and The Organization Development Network (ODNetwork) was 43 years old — I had very high hopes that a comprehensive and thoughtful approach to change would emerge … an approach that might reflect how I practice and help me to expand and advance my capabilities.
As ACMP’s approach began to coalesce around, what I believed to be, a process-focused methodology for Project Change Management I became disappointed and wrote the the Board advocating for consideration of a wider perspective. This was not to be. These, and other professional associations, continue their good work in their silos without acknowledging the importance of each others’ work.
In defining it as it has been, (as tactical and project process exclusive), organizations have placed boundaries around the work that PREVENT practitioners from the necessary conversations with leaders, from the types of assessments that are essential, from the top-down/Portfolio interventions that can make more cost-effective impacts.
It is up to us, as practitioners, to do our own homework and sense making to bring this together. I have to wonder if the emergence of so much work on “agility” is a reflection of this consilience.
Different types of Change
As I was reviewing the Cynefin Framework this morning it reminded me of work I learned earlier with Daryl Conner on the differences between Incremental and Transfomational Change (Degree of Difficulty), I was struck again by how different change can be … and how all the change practitioners I know have developed their own deep mindsets , ‘toolkits’ and reference materials from many sources.
It’s worth a hard think about the different types of change. In the Cynefin Framework, which is now easily accessible in the public domain and deep additional education is available, Dave Snowden calls out four different variations of change:
- Clear
- Complicated
- Complex
- Chaotic
There is an increasing degree of difficulty to understand and ‘manage’ each. His lexicon gives us new and refined ways of thinking about what we do.
Understanding and using a shared frame of reference is essential for this conversation because so often we speak of “change” as if there is only one variation and therefore only need for one approach. This could not be further from my experience.
Different Types of Change “Management”
Whether any of these types of change can be “managed”, as in controlled, directed and predicted is a subject of much debate and let’s park that for now with the spirit that, in many cases, we must try.
That many of our professionals practices come at it differently and believe that they, exclusively are correct, is fascinating.
How many different professional disciplines have or are developing approaches for change? Here’s a loose starting list with a lot of cross over: Communications, Change Management, Organization Development, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Project Management, Process Improvement / Lean Six Sigma, Agile Practices, Business Analysis, Business Architecture, Leadership Development, Learning and Development, Industrial and Organizational (I/O) Psychology, Psychiatry, Arbitration, Mediation, etc, etc, etc.
So many disciplines are “taking a crack at change” and each uses a different frame of reference and brings their own mindsets, tools and experience to the table. Each, often, debates the value of the others and usually without the context of ‘what type of change’.
Most arguments that I have heard make many assumptions (most which are not stated) and most have some merit within the context they describe.
None work in all contexts.
“Change Management” is not Change Management
I can no longer fight the global tsunami that has defined “Change Management” as a process for project-related change, as defined in ACMP’s “The Standard”. The critical mass of thinking seems to have calcified at this very basic level. I have resisted this for long enough.
I will not, however, surrender the position that the work that organizations define in projects can represent different types of change (typically from Clear to Complex and even, in cases like Covid, Chaotic) that require more than just the prescribed standard “Change Management” process / tactics. In fact, the more the change stretches toward Complex and Chaotic then the more “Change Management” methodologies, as currently defined, fall short or fail outright.
So my disappointing conclusion, based on this definition of “Change Management”, is that Change Management is not the right approach for all change. This basic level definition of “Change Management” is appropriate for clear and perhaps even small-ish Complicated changes.
Beyond that we should all be embracing approaches with our Organization Development colleagues and wider Strategy, Business Architecture, Systems Thinking colleagues.
I expect that my colleagues at The Change Management Institute may beg to differ as this organization has long defined itself on capabilities (which do apply to all types of change) rather than process. And I would agree with that however capabilities, while they position us better for Complex and Chaotic change are also are not enough.
Where to go from here? Calibrating for Clarity and Efficacy
It seems to me that we first need to do a couple of things:
- Calibate our language – get more precise about what common words mean, eg for different types of change the Cynefin Framework serves well
- Reach agreement on a shared lexicon (if only for the duration of the conversation)
- Be humble enough to recognize that few, if any of us, have actually fully understood and dealt with all types of change (that would take too many lifetimes)
- Expand knowledge of each others’ domains — respect each others’ perspective and experience
- Allow for the possibility that the world is larger than we each have considered
Leveraging all of our strengths
What might it look like if we leveraged all of the strengths of all of the professional domains … applied to the right types of change?
Here’s my thinking in progress …
The notion of the chart is to read in the direction of the arrow, accumulating the domains. For example, there will be initiatives, perhaps beginning between Complicated and Complex, where you will need Organizational Development AND Change Management … and all of the other domains preceding them. Of course this is conceptual not prescriptive — it would only be through an example or a case that we would define approach, resourcing, etc.
There are several activities / capabilities that are missing from this conversation but as I know of no formal professional domain, rather they are threads in the fabric, it is not easy to specify them. I am thinking of three in particular:
- Agile ‘ways’ of working — IMHO the best way to define this is through a culture of change ability, through mindsets, capabilities and behaviours supported by guiding principles, informed by exemplary practices and (necessary evil) some tools. I have invested in understanding The Agile Model © for this purpose
- Ongoing Re-Alignment — Often leaders begin with a shared vision of the strategy (thank you McKinsey, Bain and BCG) and conceptual solution however it is high level, disaggregated into isolated projects and rarely implementable in it’s original conception. As the initiative rolls forward (more information is gathered and insights developed) then calibrations are required — often addressed through scope change (PCR anyone?). These incremental calibrations have the affect of changing the trajectory of the solution and the target ROI, I have often seen significant ‘drift’ from original intent and the promise to the Board sometimes down right ‘shifts’ — these are usually obscured by several factors (not the least of which are the incessant drone of Scope/Timeline/Budget which often completely overlooks the original strategic intent and fears associated with career-limiting accountability). This is a low grade risk in Clear change and perhaps moderate for Complicated. Once into the Complex and Chaotic this risk is untenable. Project Management methodology is too cumbersome for the speed required, and certainly conventional Change Management lags too far behind to drive any value. “War rooms” are often established to improve information flow and alignment, and they help the working team but do not adequately engage leaders. Portfolio Management methodology is more helpful here but still nascent in many organizations. More elegance is required here.
- Decision Support — as we move into the Complex and Chaotic space, where ambiguity and active dynamics change the change constantly, there is need for a higher order capability of progressive ‘understanding, alignment and commitment’ (“Eight Stages of Building Commitment”, Daryl Conner) to develop a richer understanding of the context, the challenges / risks and the fit/evolution of the proposed solution. This trio of understanding, alignment and commitment is foundational of course, for every change, but in this realm where new information evolves or emerges every day the active engagement of leaders and Subject Matter Experts in analyzing and re-calibrating is critical and iterative. A repeatable approach (mindsets through practices) is essential to drive insights at speed. For this I am incorporating an approach defined in “Cracking Complexity” that provides a sort of structured Whole System Transformation (hat tip to Roland Sullivan) – an approach that engages representatives from around the organization with the variety of knowledge and insight to address the true Complexity of the situation, to develop/refine better solutions faster and to maintain alignment. Structured Decision Support can help with Alignment as well, by bringing the right leaders and SMEs together at the right times.
Next steps?
There is no curriculum that I am aware of for what I think of as “Strategy Execution” — it is compiled through a variety of disciplines, study and experience. Advancing sometimes feels like poking into the darkness. But I have also learned that there are many kindred spirits and when we share our struggles and approaches we can learn from each other.
Here is what I am thinking and planning — very interested to hear how others think about this and are planning:
- I have been expanding my studies into related areas for years but it’s time to be more laser focused. I just reviewed my own learning objectives, updated my Library list and prioritized reading/self study on deck here
- Change my branding to better reflect my approach and capabilities — I have long since down played “Change Management” in favour of “Strategy Execution” but that is not well understood. Remove “Change Management” from company name.
- Increasing networking with like-minded practitioners to compare notes
Change Whisperer by www.gailseverini.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
Interesting points, Gail.
Sadly, there is always a desire for “the solution” for all problems, as though a screwdriver is also a good saw and hammer. Additionally, the desire for the apparent safety of the “we did the approved thing” is strong, with a strong wish to be able to pass accountability along to the process.
Clients want it for ease of choice, so practitioners tend to provide what the client wants as the client is the one selecting the winning bid and paying the bills. The degree of faith in “change management” is simultaneously complimentary and disheartening as is seems to expect that activity A will lead to result B, setting aside the challenges of cultures, structures, and people.
Just as in management consulting, it seems to me that the best preparation for a practitioner is a broad and eclectic background leading to the toolbelt bulging with possible solutions that can be brought to bear as required, along with the humbleness to realize that even the most experienced person must continue to learn, grow, and adapt.
Very insightful! Thanks for weighing in Reg!
What I love about your post is the way it starts to tease out every “framework” requires “thought” and expertse to truly add value. I am reflecting on when I originally tackled the world of financial planning (approx 1985). It was the wild West, anyone could hang a shingle and call themselves a financial planner. Fast forward – I mean slow forward – 35 years, and there are now standards and guardrails that have enhanced the professionalism of the space. And that’s people’s MONEY. So while I agree with so many points you have raised, I am not ready to give up on the concept of “change management” just yet. As you know I am a huge advocate of a move to a single standard/professional association. I do believe the wrangling that would result from arriving at “agreement” would enhance the intent of a standard and accreditation, and the guardrails that would enhance its meaning. I think about the P Eng status – it dates back to 1907 in the U.S. and Internet indicates only about 20% of engineers apply for P Eng…(Wiki data so treat with caution) and that’s a MUCH older profession, and one where “people die”…. All this to say, I welcome your discussion and will be interested in comments from others in the industry as well!
Hello Yvonne !! So appreciative of your comment! A huge AMEN to your “advocate of a move to a single standard/professional association”. And big respect to your willingness and ability to play the long game! I have often said that I wish ACMP and CMI would grow up, get married and have off spring. Big head shake required for leaders of both organizations – I say “grow up” intentionally. And why stop there? The real value comes in the top to bottom integration which would have to include OD Network. Yes, I dream. In the meanwhile, in the absence of this consilience, we all need to pressure organizations to do change better. This is my way – stir it up 😉
This is a really thought provoking post. I too am frustrated that CM has become such a PM driven practice. I wish that there was more openness and understanding that different levels of change require different levels of CM (breadth and depth). Please keep going with the idea of creating a single, integrated practice with trained professionals.
The Cynefin framework resonated with me and I like where you are going with aligning the different practices as a continuum to support the different quadrants. A few thoughts on the model you are working toward:
1. You have CM as one of the elements but I see parts of CM pulled out as separate elements (ex. comms, l&d.) so then I think – what is CM in this context?
2. I’m intrigued about what comes on the left (complex and chaotic changes). This to me is the most valuable part of the model – to push into the real work that will be required to deliver results. This is what leaders are missing IMO.
3. I know you are focused on defined practices but there are things on the left that are fundamentally different. I see strategy as the last point on the continuum. I would have assumed that strategy execution would come after that and then the things above fit in that framing. Is this because, to your point, there is not a strategy execution practice? I wonder if this is the next big idea – showing the elements that must be part of that practice in addition to what is already on the model? Things like intent clarity, designing governance for realization, leader alignment/commitment – these are some of the fundamentals I suppose. I wonder if “strategy” practice has some of these things already included?
I really like your ongoing realignment and agile as integrating into this framework too. The idea of speed, testing, improving, course correcting is critical. And being able to show results in bite size pieces.
As always, great, meaty work. I am really interested in where you take this.
Hello Janice. Deep insights – thank you. On #1, yes I realize it’s not super clear. I am thinking that there are changes when Communications and Training are all that might be required, ie no CM assessments, no plans, etc. On #2 me too 🙂 these are the 3 additional elements (added this morning in green) and there probably should be others. On #3 yes some of the placeholders on the left are not as defined. To my mind all of the elements represented are components of Strategy Execution … I don’t understand “and then the things above fit in that framing”… Strategy as a defined practice, in my experience is much more top of the house, start of the 1-3-5 year cycle. I do think that Strategy itself needs to become more iterative and agile (a la Rita Gunther McGrath) but that might make it another inner check loop AND to your point intent clarity would be built through out several of the processes (in part through Portfolio and Program/Project Management). Thanks for your questions and advancing this thinking!
Gail, as always, you stir my thinking which is aligned with yours on this topic. I believe that another shift is required that you don’t address, and that is a shift in the modality by which change practitioners deliver their services. The tendency is to approach as a Subject Matter Expert, bringing answers to leadership’s change execution challenges. In short, we tend to serve as consultants (internal or external), and most of us tend to ease off the difficult truth telling when our clients don’t want to hear them. First, I believe that there are times when we should be coaching our clients, helping them find (and own) their own answers. In addition, I think we need to establish greater trust with those we serve. Otherwise, no matter how filled our toolkit, how robust our approach we will continue to fall short of delivering the value we are able to.
Brian! You are so right of course! It is very challenging to find the right stance and voice with leaders … that inspires confidence and trust but does not come off as arrogant and pushy (which of course is a total turn off). I think we all aspire to establish greater trust but these are big and abstract concepts. I think it begins with really knowing your stuff right? Knowing our practice area, knowing how our practice area interconnects with the others (how we serve each other) and knowing our change (the rich specifics of scope, development, design, testing, impacts, etc) thoroughly. That’s where credibility lies. Then the challenge is finding the right voice. Even many senior practitioners I know struggle with their voice and then also to read their audience and adjust on the fly. Not easy at all. I tend to use qualifiers that signal I defer to leaders but want to collaborate, like “it looks to me, but of course you’ll have more information” and “perhaps we could consider …”. Most could use a coach like you 🙂
Hi Gail,
Nice post – i love it when you stir the pot 🙂
I am probably of topic, as usual, but here are some thoughts.
Corporations do not change for transformation or innovation.
Someone, somewhere decided that we were now living in a state of change and this is now the new normal. That people need to accept change because guess what: it’s coming at you no matter what. Change is good, no matter what we change, stop thinking of the value it brings just go with the flow.
Change entered a Fordism era where we produce changes, using predefined processes and tools. No more thinking just produce the change and fast…
Who killed change management: imposed cadence of changes with no purpose, no transformation, no innovation.
My two cents.
Nico.
Hi Nico. I am sorry you are having this “Fordism” experience! If the vision and value of the strategic and composite changes (another of our fav topics – Portfolio Mgmt) is outright unclear or missing that is poor Leadership – straight up. To the degree that Change Practitioners (and here I include Business Leaders, Change Management and Project Management practitioners) allow this then shame on us!
I acknowledge that sometimes strategy is, in fact, highly competitive and may require degrees of confidentiality – that certainly makes it more difficult to convey a compelling vision however effort matters. Let’s face it tho, most change is not that competitive -and timing matters … when information is less confidential it can be shared.
adding to your list Gail – Gary Hamel’s Humanocracy. Loved this and like you , change management has a place in project delivery perhaps, but what is emerging is that we need new ways to identify challenges to execution and that looks a lot like figuring out how to be better leaders, coaches, and do the hard work of getting out in front and sorting the things that are getting in the way.
Hello Dawn. Thank you for this “what is emerging is that we need new ways to identify challenges to execution and that looks a lot like figuring out how to be better leaders, coaches, and do the hard work of getting out in front and sorting the things that are getting in the way”. 100% agree!
Great article and one the very few that across my entire career and practice that I came across. I am totally agreeig and aligned with what you have in there Gail .. great blog post
For the longest time and after 22 years of travelling the world delivering complex change programs I came to realize that the practice of change management (as it stands at the moment) should not have existed in the way it is now.
The first point) the current practice/methodology is mimicking the project management structure approach in a way.. I see change, not as a project .. it has no beginning and end.. if the sole purpose of any change is to make change stick, then change really doesn’t begin and end with projects .. and it is a more holistic and integrative approach than what we have now
The second point) through my practical experience and the diverse skillset of cultures, practices, methodologies and changes I have been involved with.. I see change as a large flat piece of lego tat you then all your ” other practices”as the lego pieces you would use to create change, design, manage, deliver and adopt change ..
in my humble opinion, there is only one way to create meaningful and adopted change and that is to make it holistic and integrative
Thank you Jess, for taking time to read and comment. I understand and relate to your point of view. Like so many things that we humans attempt to shift and control, we have given “change” various forms. Certainly projects are only one form. Our challenge, I think, it to understand that project management and change management and so many other forms are mechanisms – they have the benefits of giving us a shared reference. However, by their nature, they are limited and therefore are inherently imperfect. Our role as change agents is to understand the universal nature and basic principles of change and to use these and more mechanisms to help our colleagues to move to a future / better state. We should not get too attached to the mechanisms … they are merely a means to an end.