In our last article we wrote about how commitment was a critical success factor in successful transformation and commented on how good it was to see a former client taking responsibility for their ongoing transformation. This elicited a number of interesting responses which tie in with an article the we have been meaning to write for some time now.
The responses highlighted how common it is as transformation professionals to be brought in to an organisation, which then picks and chooses our recommendations or fails to act, and then asks us why we haven’t achieved the significant change we promised. One of you used an analogy that has been on our minds now for a long time – that these organisations are like a person with poor physical fitness hiring a personal trainer, but then fails to then do any of the work in the eating/training plan, only to blame the trainer when they have seen no improvement in their fitness!
It does not take much in the way of research or imagination to see that there are striking similarities between the transformation of an organisation no longer competitive in its environment and a personal transformation from a poor state to one of health and fitness. Part of the reason for our interest in this is that it is personal – one of us only has to do our practical exams to qualify as a personal trainer, and the other is trying to get fitter!
So, let’s look at a personal transformation of the sort we see on TV shows such as ‘The Biggest Looser’ and ‘A Year to Save My Life’. We have chosen such extreme examples because they require true transformation – not just cutting down on the cakes and going for a walk every now and then! The individuals looking to transform typically have a number of common characteristics. There is typically some event that has created a mindset resulting in behaviour (excessive eating, little exercise) which over time has rendered the individual unable to operate as a ‘regular person’. This has finally reached the point where it is often injurious to their health and ability to function in society (work, maintain relationships etc). Typically, there has been an event, such as the inability to do something they have always taken for granted or a health scare, that has been a wake-up call for the need to change.
What does this look like from the perspective of an organisation looking to transform? We find surprising similarities. Typically, there will be some traumatic event that has introduced bad behaviours. This will often be in the form of some new product or feature set that has to be rushed out to the customer. Corners will be cut, and work-arounds put in place to make this happen, resulting in success. Those involved in creating what is undoubtedly technical and organisational debt will be rewarded and a culture of ‘just get it done’ is created. Over time all of this debt will build up making it more and more difficult for the organisation to operate and compete in its environment, leaving it vulnerable. Then we have the event – perhaps a new player in the market with a more exciting product, or a loss of market share or a major contract, that is the wake-up call for the need to change.
So how should an organisation in such a position proceed? Well, lets look at what happens in personal transformation. The vast majority of people looking to dramatically change their lifestyle for the better fail. In fact, the private gym business model (while admittedly now starting to change) is based on the fact that of those people who sign up for membership, the majority (estimated around 70%) will stop using the facilities within a few months at most. But shows like the Biggest Looser don’t just throw a gym membership at someone and say ‘best of luck’ – they employ specialist mentors (they are more than just personal trainers) with a solid track record of success. These mentors look at all aspects of their clients’ lifestyle and look to motivate them to make systemic changes. They start small, and use regular checkpoints to build on each success. They set and agree key measurements and targets, and work towards those, be they weight, body fat or some specific performance goals such as running a 5K. Regular touchpoints and celebration of successes as well as incentives are used to build motivation.
So, what can our organisation looking to transform learn from this? Well, the first thing is that you are not likely to succeed alone. You will greatly increase your chances if you get some professional support in the form of transformation/change specialists with a solid record of success. Set clear, meaningful and measurable goals, have regular measurement points and celebrate your successes.
It sounds easy if you say it quickly enough! The problem is that like people, each organisation is different. You need to make sure that the support you have understands the best way to change your organisation. You also need to make sure you have enough support. 1 or 2 or even 5 ‘coaches’ are not going to change your 2000-person organisation – they may not even be enough to change your leadership team. In order for change to take place there needs to be a critical mass of people within the organisation who want to change. Without this any attempts at change will be resisted.
Even with all of the right support not everyone is successful. Not everyone listens to their mentor and sticks to the diet and exercise plan. These are the people who were never really serious about transforming their lives in the first place. Transformation is hard, and takes perseverance and commitment. While a mentor can help motivate you the real motivation to change must come from within.
Organisational change is exactly the same – employing some transformation or change specialists and thinking that you have done the hard part and can ignore them and let them get on with it is exactly the same as employing a personal trainer and then expecting them to do the diet and exercise for you. Unfortunately, we have seen too many executive teams do just that – even to the extent of sabotaging a transformation – all because it is hard and they did not want to do the work. It is then easy to blame the transformation specialists for a lack of results rather than address the real issue of a lack of motivation.
Finally, many people who have transformed themselves have slipped back into their old ways when the spotlight and support move on. The same seems to be true of organisations. The people who drove the change move on to fresh challenges, and the innovators are slowly replaced by ‘professional managers’ with a command and control mindset. This is because the transformation had goals relating to getting from ‘A’ to ‘B’, without considering what happened when ‘B’ was reached. The best way to avoid this, and to retain your transformers and innovators is to create an organisation that is looking to continuously improve and adapt to its changing environment – an ‘Adaptive Organisation’ if you will. Now…..drop and give me 20!
The standard process for becoming more able to respond to increasing competitive challenge is as follows:
1) Hire consultants
2)
3) Profit
Many company cultures talk about “ownership”, into which they bundle responsibility and accountability. Who “owns” that thing? Bureaucratic and pathological organisations struggle with the concept of distributed responsibility, as it implies trust. They like accountability because it implies that someone is to be held to account if something isn’t done. Justice will be served!
In more generative cultures, people and teams trust each other, distribute responsibility, but they remain accountable: personally accountable. They hold themselves to account if they don’t uphold their end of the bargain.
Leaders in organisations must hold themselves to account if they don’t change the culture so that they can innovate. It isn’t the fault of the consultants if the leaders don’t want to commit to getting fitter!
Hi Jon – what a great summary of the key points we were trying to communicate! It’s true that accountability has become somewhat of a poisoned chalice and synonymous with blame rather than the opportunity to really be a part of something meaningful. Unfortunately, this mentality and culture are always a limiting factor on an organisations ability to change, innovate and be successful.
Hmmm but what about the coaches/consultants changing their approach? Rather than just getting annoyed that the organisation isn’t listening. Your article hints this :
” These mentors look at all aspects of their clients’ lifestyle and look to motivate them to make systemic changes. They start small, and use regular checkpoints to build on each success. They set and agree key measurements and targets, and work towards those “.
But this makes me think that we are way to permissive and not authoritative enough in our usual approach. We come in to doff our hats and do the SoW. But what if we went in and treated organisations more like we were the experts. We set them the goals and regularly measure them instead of ourselves. This sounds a bit too much like treating the business as children but if you think of the transaction it makes sense. Consultant gives time to improve business. Business gives consultant not just money but a case study of their methods in practice for learning and sales. If the business gives money but the consultant can’t learn from the change because it has been resisted then they are not a fully worthwhile partner.
What are your thoughts Jeremy and Helen?
Hi Becky!
Thanks for your comment – you raise a very interesting point, and one we try to address more deeply in our new article ‘Are you ready for change?’. I think for me the word you used that really struck a chord was ‘transaction’- and in a transaction there must be two willing participants. While I agree that the business change community can always evaluate and improve our ways of working and interacting with organisational leaders, I also think that without the accountability and commitment to this process from leaders, this becomes a very one-sided transaction. In this kind of unbalanced relationship, we typically see all of the heavy lifting on the side of the coach/ consultant so, once removed, any improvement is short lived.
If we can reach the stage where we have an equal relationship with change leaders within organisations, the approach you outlined sounds like a good way for all parties concerned to get something positive!