- Everyone has a “change signature,” one or more characteristic ways of dealing with change as a change agent, intermediary, and/or recipient. Understanding your change signature is very important to your effectiveness. You may want to change it, but even if you do not wish to make changes, it is helpful if you have thought about what it currently is.
- Based explicitly on course materials from Seminars 1-5, describe your “change signature.” That is, describe the characteristic way(s) you initiate and respond to organizational change efforts. There is no “one” correct change signature. For example you may be a proponent of radical change, resist any change that someone else initiates, or a combination.
- This paper is not just about your philosophy of responding to and initiating change. Rather, you should describe examples of behaviors in which you have engaged as a change agent and/or change recipient. You should link these behaviors explicitly with class materials (that you formally reference), and explore the linkage between the behaviors and materials in some depth.
Reading:
The Kotter Model
Built on a study of more than 100 businesses, the eight-step Kotter Model provides an excellent framework for leading change. The model’s author, Dr. John P. Kotter, is a former Komosuke Matsushita Professor of Leadership at the Harvard Business School. The technique is taught to U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) program managers in the Advanced Program Managers Course.
The Kotter Model is designed to be followed sequentially and completely. The eight steps are:
(1) Establishing a Sense of Urgency,
(2) Creating the Guiding Coalition,
(3) Developing a Vision and Strategy,
(4) Communicating the Change Vision,
(5) Empowering Broad-Based Action,
(6) Generating Short-Term Wins,
(7) Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change, and
(8) Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture. (1)
Kotter suggests that any shortcuts, such as skipping or rushing through a phase, may have the same effect as skipping or rushing though the steps of baking a cake-performance will likely flop. Additionally, experience has shown that cutting corners may result not only in failing to successfully change the organization over the long term, but also in stirring up the frustration, anger, confusion, and lack of focus by the staff that typically results from another “failed management effort.”
Step 1–Establish a Sense of Urgency
Most of us understand that change often is necessary and a natural part of life, but human nature tends to resist change and fight it whenever possible–unless, of course, the change is to our advantage. All things being equal, we generally prefer to stay in our comfort zones. Perhaps we have all become “institutionalized” to some degree after living with a particular organization or business process for years. Therefore, to make change desirable, we must believe that change is not only a necessary and logical response to the current situation, but that the status quo is ultimately more dangerous than the new environment. We must believe that change presents more opportunity and less danger than remaining the same. (2)
Kotter recognizes this need in his first step, stating that you must force an organization out of its everyday complacency by creating a sense of urgency. Employees will only cooperate with the change if a strong impetus for overcoming the daily “business as usual” attitude is established.
There are many ways to achieve a sense of urgency (Kotter lists nine). One technique entails actually creating a crisis around the current system or process. For example, a department head might submit a low annual departmental budget, when he knows it is inadequate, given the current business methods. In a contracting office with a strong commitment to success, the chief can set stretch goals, such as to reduce procurement administrative lead times by 50 percent, which cannot be reached by using the traditional approach.
Another technique may be to open an honest dialogue with associates, in which problems with the current environment are pointedly explained. In a similar vein, a manager might ask for and share customer feedback, knowing that there may be some bruised egos as a result. Sometimes staff needs to be bombarded with information about the changes going on around them, so that they see that they will be left behind if they do not aggressively challenge the status quo. Another technique is to simply increase accountability by holding people responsible for broader business performance than to which they are accustomed. They will soon realize they must change to survive.
As an example, take fielding a new contracting software system in a DOD contracting office, something that most DOD employees have experienced. Establishing a sense of urgency may be as simple as setting a date for the new system to begin functioning and legacy systems to cease. But the urgency from this factor alone may not be sufficient to filter down to lower level contracting officers. To achieve buy-in at all levels, the chief of contracts and branch and team chiefs could share their views in graphic and quantifiable terms for why the change is so important to the entire organization. They might point Out that it is unacceptable to take nine months to award a new software contract when new technology and software tools are rolling out every 18 months. Contracting leadership might openly discuss the benefits of the new system, such as X dollars per year in cost reductions, Y months saved in routine procurement cycle times, increased financial accountability, improved customer satisfaction, or perhaps even how some of the money saved might come back to that office for improved facilities. The point is to demonstrate not only why it is beneficial to make the change, but why it is important to make the change now. While this step seems simplistic, Kotter emphasizes that it should not be underestimated. Doing so is a major cause of failure in organizations seeking change. When an organization fails to sufficiently build a sense of urgency, managers and foot soldiers alike quickly lose enthusiasm for the move, their interest wanes, and they slide back into their old business ways.
Step 2–Create the Guiding Coalition
The second step is to create a powerful guiding coalition. Kotter argues that the days of a single, dynamic individual (think Lee Iacocca) being able to lead an organization through a major change are limited. Today’s business environment is just too difficult and complex for any one person to successfully lead change, while simultaneously managing the everyday duties of running the organization.
Fortunately, the sense of urgency created in step one enhances the ability to pull together a group of high-level, proven leaders with a significant expertise to guide change. These are not the usual division chiefs, branch chiefs, or even stakeholders that attend regular staff meetings (although some of them may be included). Instead, these are highly credible individuals with strong position power who are committed to the change’s success, even if it should mean temporarily subordinating their own personal goals. This is why the entire senior staff typically would not be asked to participate because some are merely managers with no real personal influence, while others are even antagonists.
Surprisingly, a weak coalition, such as a standard integrated product team (IPT), can be detrimental to the proposed change because the members are not perceived as having sufficient clout to bring about necessary actions. The role of the guiding coalition is to advise, provide top cover, communicate, and promote the impending change. Without the power, voice, and credibility of an august group of leaders, few of the other managers will have the will or time to join in and support the change.
Continuing our earlier example, the chief of contracting may bring in select senior leaders from throughout the enterprise to support the software system changes. Some possible candidates for the guiding coalition would be a key customer or two, handpicked branch chiefs, a union representative, and maybe even select representatives from the engineering and finance divisions.
Note that the chief does not attempt to single-handedly bring about all the changes. Even in a hierarchical organization such as DOD, where subordinate leaders will more or less do as they are told, there should be several proven leaders with real expertise and position power who will actively get buy-in from those below and convince them that the change is worthwhile, It is important that a move to implement new software not appear as merely just another routine order from above, but a significant improvement in the way the organization does business.
Step 3–Develop a Vision and Strategy
As someone once said, “If you don’t know where you are going, then it doesn’t much matter what road you take.” The same is true in our organizations–people want to know where they are headed before investing time and energy. Moreover, they want to know not only where they are going, but why.
The vision should represent a picture of the organization’s ideal future and clearly answer the question of “why change?” for everyone. It should spell out what the expected change will look like when complete, and give a general direction for how to get there. The vision must motivate in and of itself by creating such an exciting picture that employees absolutely want to get on board and be a part of the future success this vision represents. From this definition, it is easy to see why a vision is not a simple statement or platitude like one often sees hanging on the wall. Instead, the vision defines how each individual is a participant in achieving the desired end state.
Obviously, crafting such a powerful, yet intangible, element of the change program can be difficult. This is where the guiding coalition comes in. The group should already come equipped with vast experience and knowledge, and bring a wealth of ideas and possibilities to the table. It is the coalition’s job to work the vision until it captures a clear picture of the change’s purpose.
Typically, organizational visions are characterized as imaginable, desirable, feasible, focused, flexible, and communicable.(3) The vision statement should not take more than five minutes to communicate, and it should be easily understood and remembered by everyone in the organization. Even better, employees at all levels should be able to restate the vision in their own words.
In the contracting example, the vision might reflect not just fielding some software system, but going paperless over the long run by implementing a new, more user-friendly and efficient procurement system by the end of next year. This direction is refined over time to reflect a more complete picture of where the contracting office is going, and provides a general direction for how to get there. Remember that the vision is the tool that allows managers to motivate and empower their employees to work independently toward a common goal.
Step 4–Communicate the Change Vision
The vision for the change must be communicated to the organization in a clear and unambiguous manner. It must help everyone understand where and how he or she fits into the overall strategy for accomplishing the described end state. This step typically represents a major hurdle in the change process, and can only be overcome by using every form of communication available. The chief is not seeking merely to broadcast his vision of the changes, but instead should strive to get the other employees to support it and believe it is really possible. Just putting the vision statement on the Internet or local bulletin and mentioning it at the Christmas party will not achieve true, universal buy-in from those who must implement the changes.
Think about the percentage of time employees in your organization come in contact with their current vision statement versus the total information they plow through in a single day. Is it any wonder most people do not think their organization’s vision statement is all that important? The vision must be expressed in simple terms, through multiple formats repetitiously (organization newspapers, staff meetings, public announcements, etc.), and often using analogies or metaphors to ensure everyone truly gets the point. It is equally important for the leaders (especially the guiding coalition) to walk the talk and set a credible example, always ready to offer clear explanations for perceived inconsistencies, such as why certain policies seem to point in another direction.
In the contracting example, the chief of contracting and members of the guiding coalition must actively “talk up” the successes being achieved in monthly staff meetings, describe the progress being made in the organization’s quarterly newspaper, and provide periodic staff briefings that emphasize the new system’s many benefits (e.g., greater customer satisfaction with turnaround time, less required overtime). A kick-off celebration might be a good first step to ensure that everyone understands how the vision applies to them, and that they can be confident that their bosses believe the vision is a true winner.
Step 5–Empower Broad-Based Action
Empowerment is not, as commonly believed, simply stepping out of the way as a leader and asking those folks involved to “go to it.” The stage must first be set with the common vision established in step three, ensuring that everyone understands what they are trying to do in step four, and then adding training and understanding to accomplish responsibilities implicit in the work.
Next, the structures and systems that the organization is built around, such as the appraisal, compensation, and accountability systems, may need to be modified to better support the new end state. Existing structures, policies, procedures, and norms shape behaviors and limit actions. They must be challenged and realigned to support the new methods before deciding how much empowerment should be given to each individual.
You might start by asking what people need to perform their roles in this vision. Some employees may not have the skills or knowledge necessary to take on new challenges. Therefore, the organization may first need to acquire some ancillary education or training.
For example, when the chief of contracting is satisfied that everyone understands the vision for the new system, he can focus on methods for getting there and realigning the organization to better support the new environment. After reviewing the users’ current knowledge and proficiency levels with the new system, it may be necessary to hold classes demonstrating the best use of the software and to capture lessons learned or best practices.
Are there employees who cannot type? Does everyone understand how to use support software such as Microsoft Excel? What archaic policies require duplicate or unnecessary work? Can proposals be electronically requested? Are certain reporting systems no longer needed under the new system? Can contract funding be handled electronically? Are employees rewarded for achieving the new metrics? These questions are the first of many that must be asked and addressed, which will surely drive unforeseen modifications to the fielding plan. It does not matter how well the contracting office leadership planned for the change; they must remain flexible and willing to listen to problems with the new system and be prepared to react to keep the organization moving toward the intended vision.
Step 6–Generate Short-Term Wins
Step six of the Kotter Model is to plan for and create short-term wins. Having come this far, people often are anxious to see results. They may have heard promises of benefits from the new changes for a long time (maybe even years); and they are starting to wonder if this new change is really all it’s cracked up to be. They may be starting to lose enthusiasm, and if that happens, general support will begin to dwindle. Thus, it is critical to not only contemplate but to plan for short-term wins within a year or two of starting the change program, so employees will see that their efforts are valuable.
Without tangible evidence that their efforts are worthwhile, it is easy for employees (including managers) to grow tired and lose faith that they are on the right track. They may even switch sides and join the resisters. Yet when people see increased performance in the form of better cooperation, more thorough reviews, and higher quality solicitations, as well as reduced costs and/or shorter cycle times, it fuels their enthusiasm and appetite for even greater changes.
In the contracting office, this stage offers the perfect opportunity to publicly recognize and reward those branches that have successfully integrated the new software on or before their scheduled fielding date. When the first solicitation has made it all the way through the process electronically, throw a party celebrating the organization’s success using the new procurement system. And remember that money talks–recognize through cash awards individuals who demonstrated outstanding initiative, changed existing procedures, and created new processes that take advantage of the new software’s capabilities.
