Pandora's Toolbox of Change Management

Traditional Organizational Change Management (OCM) fails spectacularly in fast moving, turbulent, highly competitive markets. I’m reminded of the Greek myth about Pandora’s box. According to the story, after Prometheus gave the gift of fire to humans, Zeus decided to punish him. He ordered Hephaestus to create the first human woman out of soil and water. Each god gave Pandora a gift: Athena gave her wisdom, Aphrodite beauty, Hermes a colorful silk scarf, and so on. Zeus gave Pandora a jar, warning her not to open it under any circumstances. Long story short, the jar was opened, releasing sickness, death, Gantt charts, and other evils into the world. She rushed to close the lid, but only one thing was left inside – usually translated as Hope, but in most organizations, we call it a Change Request.

Reflecting on Kotter’s framework for leading change, I realized just how much traditional change management relies on “big planning up front, big failure out back”. Change management tends towards being intentional, planned, linear, and rigid. By the time you have ‘established a sense of urgency’ and ‘built your guiding coalition,’ the context has changed, marketing has revised their launch dates, and you just found out your company has completed an acquisition which must now be integrated and onboarded before the slush fund runs out. So much for that Digital Transformation! Also, most change programs (if they are ever planned and executed) measure success by their compliance to the plan and the process, not coherence to the desired intent and outcomes.

Most change programs I’ve observed focused more on filling out and word-smithing mindless ADKAR® templates and MS Project Gantt Charts than understanding the complexity of frail human systems. Traditional change management is not charged with creating the right conditions for psychological safety, clarity of vision, or convergence on the next most important problem to solve (is there a checklist for that?). This means that instead of people being part of the change, the change is inflicted upon them. In fast moving, turbulent, and highly competitive markets, managing change should become a continuous process and a leadership capability guided by principles, focused on the problem to be solved, and aligned to the purpose of the organization. 

My professor at Booth, Linda Ginzel, used to say, "Behavior is a function of Person and Situation." She uses an equation developed by pioneering psychologist Kurt Lewin that is central to social psychology: B = f(P,S) — that is, behavior (B) is a function (f) between a person (P) and a situation (S). As a leader, you don’t have control over what’s inside the person, but you do have control over aspects of the situation — governance, structures, incentives, physical space, measures, for example.

To be successful, OCM should focus less on tooling, timelines, process, or propaganda, and more on shaping the conditions necessary for people engaged in the change to take ownership and accountability for shifting the organization from the current condition towards a preferable one. In that way, perhaps change management should be considered a form of design, instead of project management. If there isn't a well-diffused and shared understanding of your answer to the question, "Why Change?" you might start there. That sounds like an opportunity for design. 

To illustrate this point, UCLA Professor of Strategy, Gary Hamel, posed this thought experiment in his article, "Strategy as revolution," when he wrote: 

Imagine that I coax a flatlander to the top of a snow-covered mountain. After strapping two well-waxed skis onto the flatlander’s feet, I give the nervous and unprepared nonskier a mighty push. He or she goes screaming over a precipice; I’m booked for murder. One could well understand how the novice might not appreciate the “change” I sought to engineer. Now imagine that the nonskier takes lessons for a few days. The now fledgling skier may ascend the same mountain and, though full of caution, voluntarily point the skis downhill. What has changed? Even with a bit of training, skiing is not without risks. But in the second scenario, the skier has been given a modicum of control—an ability to influence speed and direction.

A modicum of control - the ability to influence speed and direction. Perhaps you might consider the application of agile principles like inspect and adapt, continuous elaboration, and small incremental and iterative change which just may prevent your change management program from going south like a duck in winter. A modicum of control, and people may engage with the challenge at hand. You might also consider creating a large visual board of the problems or impediments to be addressed and bonus points if you think about how you might measure your change. Just some thoughts.