In our last article, Jeremy described the challenges of trying to support an organisational transformation that lacks true leadership commitment, and how a personal sense of accountability can be the difference between success and failure. In our analogy of hiring a personal trainer; ‘these organisations are like a person with poor physical fitness hiring a personal trainer, but then fail 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!’ If you didn’t catch the last article, you can find it here: https://theadaptiveorganisation.com/taking-accountability-for-your-transformation/

It seems that so many leadership teams aware of the need for change yet lack the commitment to achieve this change or have no sense of accountability towards making it happen. But why is this? I’m going to extend the personal trainer analogy here one more time to illustrate why, even when faced with an overwhelming case for change, many groups and individuals still fail to find commitment and accountability for change.
While studying for my PT certificate, we faced into this challenge using the ‘Stages of change model’ to understand the conditions and pre-requisites that would lead to a higher likelihood that an individual is genuinely ready for change.

Now, before we go any further you might be surprised that I am taking inspiration from a model that’s designed to help break addiction. Isn’t that a bit extreme? In a word – No. Addiction is defined as ‘a persistent, compulsive dependence on a behaviour or substance’ and for organisational change, we are specifically dealing with a ‘process addiction’ to ways of working and behavioural systems that generate a negative or sub-optimal outcome.
Much like when dealing with an individual who wants to become more active and healthier, we must look at the organisation, and its leadership’s readiness for change. Let’s examine each stage to learn what they mean for organisations.

Precontemplation: In this stage, an organisation is not yet aware that it’s behaviours, processes and systems are generating a sub-optimal result for them. It may be that they are genuinely on top of their game. They might also be the only player in that market and lack challenge to bring them to any different realisation. In either case, change is not something the organisation is consciously or sub-consciously considering.
Contemplation: In this stage, an organisation is aware that it’s behaviours, processes and systems are perhaps not as strong as they would like. There may be some idea that change could be beneficial, but no serious alternatives are being explored or talked about.

This stage is interesting because many leaders mistake this for readiness to commit to change, when in fact, this is merely an indication that a willingness to consider some change has arisen. This could be a little change, or complete organisational transformation. This stage could last weeks, or the organisation might never actually graduate from this stage.

Preparation: Here we find organisations who have accepted that change is inevitable and are ready to commit to change. In these organisations, you might see some activity to test out how change might affect the processes and behaviours of the organisation. We call this ‘hot spotting’ or experimenting in small areas of the business to see what works, and what constrains change. You can read more about ‘hot spotting’ and other models of change in out short e-book here: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-patterns-of/9781492028017/ch01.html

This stage is very fragile because even small failures in these trials can send a company back towards Precontemplation – ‘We tried something, and it didn’t work. I guess we’re ok the way we are’ Ultimately, the aim here is to trail ways of working, reflect, learn and use this information to generate forward momentum.

Action: It is at this point we find organisations putting into place the plans and measures they believe will result in the desired change. Here is where external change agents can be most effective as the organisational consciousness is open to new processes, behaviours and systems. While commitment can be tested here, a carefully constructed transformation strategy will be inclusive of a number of short term and achievable goals, and caches will be on hand to help the people within the organisation take a step back and reflect on their progress.
The crucial indicator of an organisation being in this stage (and this is also very true for people working with personal trainers) is that there is an overwhelming openness towards getting help and support.

Maintenance: Where an organisation has reached a desired state and can continue to use the new ways of working to reach its goals and outcomes with with little or no external support. In this phase, an organisation is still consciously choosing to deploy the newly learnt behaviours and processes to support a desired operating state. This is important to note as it explains why major events (e.g. a big change in leadership, new competitors etc…) can lead to a regression in state. There is one further state – Transition – which describes an end point where the ability to continuously apply learning to find better way to solve organisational problems without fear of regression. We call this being an Adaptive Organisation.

So, how does this help us understand the apparent lack of leadership commitment to organisational change? I think this helps us understand a few key reasons why some leadership teams lack the commitment and accountability to really drive change.

1. Skipping a stage (or three): Many leadership teams make the mistake of trying to short circuit this change cycle. The most common example is to jump straight from ‘Contemplation’ into ‘Action’. There really isn’t a single reason for this; many are in a big hurry to remain competitive and are driven by fear, some run change like a project where they have a fixed time and budget, or in other words the current disfunction in the organisation is shaping and controlling the future state (I know, it sounds ridiculous but think about how many change programmes you have been part of that have felt like any other project!) Mostly, there is a real lack of understanding around how change really works within an organisation. Testing the effect of change is seen as a waste of time and resources or overly-simplified as a process.

Leaders who skip stages are not really on the journey at all. Short circuiting the change cycle means they never really understand what effect change has on the organisation and its people. This lack of understanding leads to a lack of commitment – what are they committing to?

2. Jumping the gun: Another reason we see the ‘blame the trainer when they have seen no improvement in their fitness’ mentality actually stems from bringing the support in too early in the process. This doesn’t mean that support is not required at every stage – different support is needed at each stage, but the wrong type of support will not be welcomed.

A common scenario would be a leadership team who bring in an agile coach to help transform the ways of working across their delivery capability. They have probably gone to an investment board for the funding in exchange for a promise of some benefit (usually x% lower operational costs) over time. The leadership team are not open to change because we are at a stage earlier than ‘Action’. For the same reason, there is no ‘pull’ from the teams who are unaware or unsure as to the need for change. This means that any progress is slow and painful. The closer they get to the delivery date; the more pressure is applied to the coach who delivers some process change.

That’s a composite of many transformation programmes I’ve either been involved with (and walked away from) or heard about from colleagues. The leadership team handed over accountability to the coach before they even understood what their accountability could be. Jumping the gun, along with short cutting the process, means leaders cannot be accountable and committed to change.

3. Consensus in collaboration: An organisations likelihood to succeed at transformation is greatly enhanced when it’s leadership acts homogenously rather than individually. When leadership is a collection of individuals, we see people at a range of stages. It’s like being part of a group who loves to socialise by eating cake – what if you’re trying to lose weight when everyone else around you are eating big slices of chocolate cake? It would take an astonishing amount of will power to say ‘no’ every time, and even more mental power to stop socialising in this way.

It’s hard to be part of a leadership team where there isn’t an overwhelming consensus to be committed to change or accountable for it. This usually ends up being a very lonely and vulnerable position to be. Coupled with the facts that most leadership teams are incentivised to keep doing the same thing year on year via set objectives and bonuses, it’s no wonder that the status quo wins out every time. This leaves the team firmly in the Pre-Contemplation to Preparation range protecting dysfunctional patterns, no matter what any evidence to the contrary might suggest.

Next time you’re meeting an organisation who are looking to you to support their change programme, treat that meeting like a personal trainer meeting a client for the first time. Think about whether they’re ready to think about change (they’ve bought some flashy trainers and a gym pass but haven’t been yet) or, whether they are actually ready for change and have been to the gym but are struggling to use the equipment or feel unconfident.