COLUMN -
Change Management
Why We Fail
at Change
Here's an observation
on how most of us manage change;
Even though our
change projects fail, we resist changing how we
implement change, finding it easier to blame those who
resist changing when we implement change...
While facilitating a
Strategic Leadership Forum on the same topic, a slightly
different version of the same observation was raised --
"Why don't we manage change with the same expertise we
demonstrate when we talk about it?" -- That discussion
generated a list of eight possible reasons. I relay them
here as observations for discussion.
1 - A lack of
resources to do it right
Nothing new here. Doing
it right the first time always seems to cost more than
we're willing to pay later. Change Management done right,
like a meal cooked by a master chef, takes time. There are
more fast food restaurants than fine restaurants, for a
reason. The #1 reason I hear from folks when discussing
Change is that "Doing it right, i.e. Getting involvement
from the start, takes far too long."
2 - We underestimate
the future cost of getting it wrong
This is the reason why
we allow ourselves to be led astray by the reason above.
What is the cost of a failed change project? Lost time? Or
lost millions? Anyone who's been involved with a failed
change project has a real sense of how much they've lost,
but we seem incapable of taking the cost of that potential
future loss into account the next time we're faced with a
change project.
We even have psychology
on our side on this one. We're not very good at properly
evaluating either future gains or loss. Most people would
choose to receive $100 today rather than $150 a year from
now.
3 - Unrealistic
expectations
When we inform others
of our intent to change we find it difficult to believe
they will find any serious objections to it. Despite past
experience, we expect change to be easy even though we
have no evidence to support that belief. Our understanding
of how people react to enforced change is coloured by the
fact that we've already accepted the reason for the change
and we've embraced those reasons as legitimate. We forget
to that to most everyone else, the change is a surprise.
4 - While we have
the knowledge, we don't have the experience
Book learning is one
thing, performing under fire is another thing entirely.
When surrounded by the politics of a change, by the angst
and the fury, the concerns and the fear, it is difficult
to step back and approach the bigger picture with informed
objectivity. It is all too easy to get wrapped up in the
excitement of the change and forget that everything we
know about change applies to the change happening right
now before us... not the next one, or the one happening in
the organization next door, or the one in the case study,
but this one. Now. In other words, we can deal well with
change in dress rehearsal, but opening night is where we
separate the students from the leaders.
5 - We don't know
change management as well as we think we do
Always a definite
possibility. Perhaps we are applying what we know, and
what we know just isn't so. If that's what's happening,
then it's time to sit back and re-examine what we think is
true. Post mortems -- the in depth analysis of dead
projects -- is always a worthwhile activity. Otherwise
we'll just keep doing what we're doing and expecting
different results. Which is, according to some folk
dictionaries, the working definition of insanity.
A useful exercise?
Write down in point form what you 'know' to be true about
change. Now comes the hard part... support each point with
careful objective analysis and real life examples.
6 - A failure to
accept that change is a process, not an event, not just
chaos
It's one thing to talk
competently of change management, and another thing
entirely to truly believe in the concepts. Life would be
so much easier if people would just 'change' and be done
with it. Isn't that what management is there for, to make
the hard decisions and then tell the rank and file what to
do? No arguments, no backchat, no dissent? What a pity
life doesn't follow the path of least resistance.
7 - An
unwillingness/inability to manage dissent
Which relates nicely to
the point above. It's one thing to manage change, but how
do you deal with those who disagree with the change? Those
who honestly, and with no intent to be a troublemaker...
ask "What's in it for me?" and "Why should I change?" and
those know it alls, who point out that this is not the
best change possible.
Not everyone deals well
with dissent, and many would rather, if possible, avoid
any conflict at all. These are not the best choices for
organizational 'change agents'. No matter how well we
manage change, there's no avoiding that it will create
questions and challenges. If these are not well managed,
then by definition the change isn't well managed. Dissent
is part and parcel of the change process. If we can't
accept that, then we must get out of management, we're not
suited to the task.
8 - We don't trust
what we know to be true about how we embrace change
This, for many, is the
real stumbling block. How we respond to change is always
'personal' and personal 'touchie feelie' approaches to
change go against the grain in many organizational
cultures. Having self confidence in the face of rampant
skepticism, is never easy. It's nearly always easier to
fail according to the corporate book, than it is to
attempt to succeed as an individual.
As mentioned at the
start, these eight observations arose out of a discussion
about why we don't seem to implement change the way we
talk about change. In the discussion, we made the
assumption that these eight failings apply, even though we
really want the change to occur. We ignored more
destructive behaviours such as management really not
wanting the change to move ahead or hidden agendas and
other forms of deliberate sabotage.
I'd be happy to receive
back commentary that either adds to the above text of
extends it to other reasons.
 Peter
de Jager is a Speaker, Seminar Leader, Consultant and
Futurist. Contact him at
pdejager@technobility.com or read more of his work at
www.technobility.com
© 2003, Peter de Jager
|
