Shifting Change From a Noun to a Verb
The presence of the environmental stressors mentioned earlier suggests that most organizations will have to adjust (change) to meet these conditions in such a manner that will either be continuous or so frequent as to seem continuous (Arena 2002; Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, Roth, and Smith 1999; Ashkenas, Ulrich, Jick, and Kerr 2002). The demands of the organization’s stakeholders and market forces create pressure on management to act. Waterson, Clegg, Bolden, Pepper, Warr and Wallet (1999) noted that organizations have been taking on a wide range of change initiatives to compete in this environment and the trend does not appear to be abating.
Kelley (2016) noted this as well: “When an organizations capacity for change absorption is exceeded by its pace of change, then the organization has reached the point of change saturation.”
As noted earlier, many firms are launching persistent (serial or overlapping) change initiatives in response to stressors in the environment. Clearly, one way to reduce the negative effects of continuous change and change saturation is to reduce the number of change initiatives launched by the organization. If recent history is a guide, this seems unlikely. The systemic impatience between organizational leaders and their stakeholders as well as the volatility in the environment indicates that depending on a reduction in change initiatives is not a reasonable position. It would certainly help and should be encouraged but another approach needs to be pursued.
An alternative to reducing the number of change initiatives is to reframe the notion of “change” and to create a change leadership framework that encourages a more adaptive and flexible organization.
One of the challenges to the interpretation of the theoretical change models is that it is often assumed a “one-size-fits-all” approach. This is unrealistic. Change may have many common characteristics, but, in practice, change is a situational and a specific experience for employees and the organization. Change management programs seem to be most effective when they are organization-specific. Therefore, the new offering suggested here is a “framework,” not a specific model. It is meant as a means to “frame” organizational strategies, processes, and tactics, in order to improve the organization’s flexibility, agility, and to reduce the stress related to change. The framework combines elements of the adaptive enterprise with additional input from change theorists such as Kotter (1996) who emphasizes the concepts of visioning, communication, and anchoring.
Sinek (2019) offers the notion of “existential flexibility” as an organizational value. He defines it as the capacity to initiate disruption to a business model or a strategic cause. He makes the point that this is essential to advance a “just cause” (change vision). The leader with an “infinite mindset” has an appreciation for the unpredictable and will flex as needed.
Kelley (2016) argues that change should be seen as an “investment.” If adaptability is embedded into the organizational DNA and seen as a natural part of the daily processes of the organization, it is likely that the organization will develop the resilience to successfully navigate the challenges of the “speed of now.”
Kelley (2016) goes on to say that as the “pace of change accelerates and the nature of change continues to evolve the more forward-thinking and adaptable organizations will take a different approach to change.” He offers “Eight Principles of Continued Change Success”:
1. Change needs to be “expected” and part of the natural process of the organization.
2. Change needs to become “part of the fabric” of the organization.
3. Change strategies, programs, or initiatives need to be characterized by “transparency.”
4. Change needs to be a “collaborative” process.
5. Change needs to be a commitment but with a dose of flexibility.
6. Change must be agile to meet the “speed of now.”
7. Change must be drive by stakeholder need.
8. Change must be “built to scale” and be contextually and situationally appropriate.
Ayelet Baron (Kelley 2016) is a futurist who often writes on the notion of “change is abundant” in the 21st century. She notes that some still see change as program that can be “neatly tied in a bow,” but in reality, change must become a “way of life” for an organization to remain relevant.
To emphasize her points Table 10.1 offers a contrast between the mindsets of a 20th Century organization and the needed mindsets for the 21st Century.
Table 10.1 The shift in organization’s adaptability approach
20th Century Organizations | 21st Century Organizations |
Deficit mindset: There is not enough Competing | Abundance mindset; We have enough Collaborating |
Sponsorship: ask leaders to sponsor the change | Conscious leaders own and integrate change into the business |
Managed and delegated the change program | Integrated into the business with strategic partners |
On-way communication to audiences | Storytelling and conversations with communities |
Resistance to change | Work and adapt to changing business needs |
Measure activity | Measure impact |
In addition to highlighting the modalities, realities, and adaptability of change within an organization, this book also aims to highlight the fact that leadership of change is critical to success. An agile workforce is based on the agility of the leaders of the organization at large. In the past, particularly the 20th century, leaders could set a tone and expect that employees in an organization would march to the beat of their drum. While that may have been the case in a lot of situations, today, a leader is expected to be not only the person setting the direction but also to be participatory in the change, provide transparency of the what, why, and how of changes, and actively be seen to live out the tenets of the change on both a professional and personal level, all the while keeping a close eye on public opinion of themselves and the organization. Hiring an experienced CEO is no longer enough; hiring an experienced CEO who is adept at communicating and participatory in the life of the organization at large has become a nonnegotiable trait required of leaders today. Emotional intelligence, strength of character, and personal characteristics such as patients, empathy, resilience, and grit have transcended buzzword status and have become essential to leaderships for companies both small and large. To be fair, the change leader cannot do all of this themselves. As such, much of these characteristics need to be leveraged to empower and transfer change objectives to a full leadership team. When leaders and their media teams are able to be on the same page and walk lockstep with each other on any change plans, it provides the organization with the highest likelihood of success and the resilience needed to face continuous change. In today’s world, one can consider this the “event horizon” management skills, or perhaps one of the more sought-after skills of leaders in today’s economy. Can the leader not only embody all these facets of effective change management, but can they also transfer this philosophy, work ethic, and sense of transparency to their leadership team? Leaders capable of both embodying all the skills and traits discussed in this book while also having the aptitude of coalescing the leadership team around them will likely be the most sought-after combination of experiences for CEO positions today and into the near future.
Finally, there is the need to mold an organization into an adaptive organization. As we discussed in earlier chapters, changing the culture of the company when it has been used to operating in the status quo is one of the most difficult things to do. Embedding into the culture the value of experimentation, risk-taking, and flexibility in decision making all take time and can sometimes be a never-ending pursuit. After all, companies are made up of people and people are unpredictable when adopting the change. In previous decades, issuing a memo to the entire organization highlighting change initiatives may have been sufficient. Today, employees are far more independent in thought and opinion. In flexibility can set in quickly and be very difficult to change. And while distributed leadership in the ability for mid-level managers to make independent decisions may sound very useful, trust becomes a major factor in whether these managers and teams can truly believe that they can make decisions and take risks without repudiation. All of this is to say, developing a change mindset is both beneficial and elusive. The resilience needed to make change a constant feature involves emotions, personal adjustments, and putting the status quo in the rearview.