Change is Bad!?

Paste this address on your web browser http://blogs.bnet.com/ceo/?p=2829&tag=nl.e713 and take a look at this article! At first, I couldn't believe what I was reading. Jeffrey Pfeffer says that change often fails, causes disruption, and uses up resources. So, listen up (new) leaders; that to change for the sake of changing or"putting your own stamp on the organization", is shortsighted and harmful. Okay, so far I agree. From there things went down hill; "evidence shows that change is bad for everyone". I'm sure I'm reading this wrong (haven't had that second cup of coffee yet). So I continue. Then I get to the end and now I'm really steaming! The next few paragraphs could be an ad for why you should cling to the status quo, "Don't Ever Change, It's Bad for Your Health". And yes, as I read further on, he does explain that change should always be well thought out and so on and so forth. Yet some of that seems to be lost on the bloggers who responded with joy that change is bad; "I totally agree with you", "Finally, a leader speaks the truth", "very enlightening", and "I love this and agree". What? Wait!

First of all his thesis on the work of Jim Baron and Mike Hannan makes way too many assumptions. He assumes that the reason for failure is in the management of people. First of all, that's wrong. It's certainly a reason for failure, but a lot of other stuff needs to be going wrong for the business to fail outright. Second, he assumes that if a business is founded with one model of management and it tries to change to a different model (commitment model - whatever that is), they will fail. Again, wrong. He doesn't say why these businesses failed, what type of change model was used (was it the same one?), what stage of change the businesses were in when they failed, how the change model was implemented, how involved the employees were, why the change to another management model was needed in the first place (could be the business was on its way out anyway), over what period of time, vision, mission....I could go on! I think Pfeffer needs to do his homework before he starts calling out "change management" as the variable that caused these companies to fail.

And there you have it! Another reason not to change; "See? It's in writing. See? We knew we shouldn't go through with this change; it's getting hard and taking too long and costing too much, things were fine just the way they were". I'm sorry, but it's hard enough to get clients on-board, involved, and persistent enough with change management, when they want and need it. Then to have people write "change and die". The article is poorly researched and written. From many different fields of work change is recognized for what it is - "hard work". But no where have I seen it written that because it's hard, disruptive, and most "new ideas fail" one should stop. Heck, if that were the case for the light bulb, we'd all be reading this by candlelight.

Now I know he says change for change sake is not good for business. But you and I both know that leaders who have all of 30 seconds to read this article may not make that express distinction. They will however remember that change is bad. You can see it in some of the bloggers comments. And that's what disappoints me - this article is sending the wrong message. You see, people remember categories not specifics as time expands. So in a few months readers will likely remember that change is bad, instead of "change for change sake is bad". So I am left feeling like pushing the snowball up the hill just got harder.

Read for yourself and see what reaction this causes in you and know that as OD practitioners and customers, we need to be diligent with and articulate when it comes to describing change management. We need to be change advocates.

Are you afraid of lions?

I was recently in the middle of developing some leadership material when I saw a documentary on the Animal Planet or some such channel, about an animal trainer and naturalist, Dave Salmoni. His adventure, "Into the Pride" was about his intent to understand why lions are afraid of humans and how he could change that. His job was to help some villagers in a neighboring village get rid of their lion problem (villagers were being killed in the bush because the lions are conditioned to fear humans). Essentially what he did was to spend many days getting to know one pride in particular - two males, two females and a bunch of cubs. Of course he has a camera crew following him and he is armed with a cane and a get-away ATV. Yes, that's right, I said a cane...a big cane! He explained that this cane would do a couple of things to scare a charging lion (don't try this on your next sarfari) 1. when raised over his head he could make himself look bigger (a lion sees it as an extension of the human), and 2. if the lion didn't care that he was bigger and still charged him, he could poke it into a soft part under the lion's jaw to cause the lion to gag and stop charging long enough for Dave to get into his ATV (no lion is permanently harmed when performing this act) and drive away.



So anyway, he's having trouble with this one male Brutus. He keeps charging Dave long after the others in the pride have stopped. So his plan is to go out that day and spend some time with Brutus to let him know that he doesn't fear him and that he doesn't mean any harm. Long story short, Brutus keeps charging, but Dave, and his trusty cane, stands his ground (albeit right next to his ATV). Eventually, after working on this all day Brutus stops charging and rests comfortably in the bush still eyeing Dave, but much more relaxed. Dave explained that if he didn't stand his ground Brutus would have eaten him for a snack that night. AND he would still be afraid of humans, thus not accomplishing anything.



Okay, so here I am trying to avoid work when I began to think about the parallels between the behavior of leaders and this Brutus and Dave thing. Okay, so we know that leaders are meant to be fearless and all. But to stand their ground in the face of adversity and to stand up for what's right, that's something else. It sounds good, makes sense, and we've even probably witnessed this once or twice (if more, consider yourself a leadership master and go to the head of the class) in our careers. There are several promenent historical figures who exemplfy this trait (ability, skill??), i.e. Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, Patsy T. Mink, and Jane Roe. So my questions are, when organizational leaders take a stand, even in the face of adversity, what is the impact on them? What kind of fears do they face? Do most hold out for a while and then eventually make consessions? Why? How do they remain fearless and vulnerable at the same time? Do they need to? What's the impact on the people in the organization? I could go on...



I believe it's Warren Bennis who said, "leaders learn best by leading" especially when they face adversity. And in Barry Oshry's video, "Power Lab", one top leader takes a solid stand to the amazement of both her colleagues and employees. Also, I remember reading in Jim Collins' book, Good to Great that level 5 leaders have most likely had significant life experiences that furthered their maturation. So it sounds like learning to lead in the face of adversity happens when the leader actually does it. But how and when do leaders decide to do that?



I have the perfect example. In the change work I do (culture change of entire organizations), there is plenty of adversity to go around; the stuff fear loves. I happen to believe, however,the top leader becomes more of a leader when she stands up to adversity, because heaven knows there'll be plenty of it. So, to decide to go through adversity I also believe that at some level it's a matter of making a commitment to facing your fear - raise that cane and the charging lion will stop, but run and it will scare you to end before it's finished. I wonder how anyone in the organization is going to feel secure if the leader becomes fearful or unsure before it's over? Do you know how many change efforts end before they're finished? Over 70%! It's not that I don't recommend taking a step back to understand the resistance, but it does mean knowing when to move forward. Fear takes many forms "this project is taking too long, we now have other commitments that are more important, our environment has changed since we started this project, I don't want my employees too upset, I'm getting too many complaints , there is something wrong with the way you're rolling this out, or this project is causing our customers to complain"...and on and on.

Now, since this is the leader's reality, as a consultant I need to honor that. I also need to help the leader see that she is experiencing resistance from the system and a good dose of her own fear of that resistance. If her change goals are sound and have been vetted properly, there is no need to waver. My experience says it's the leader's fear that cause most to get into that ATV and get out as quickly as possible. In real change efforts there is a lot of resistance and it's very scary, I get that. It takes many forms and disguises, which on the surface appear rational, real, and relavant. And at the same time, I believe the leader needs to push through the fear before she can experience a success. I've just seen too many really good initiatives end before they're finished. Maybe it should be called "resistance fatigue" but as consultants we need to create the conditions so that fear becomes a motivator not a detractor.

You see, Dave would never have a chance in heck to change that animal's behavior unless he faced his own fear first.