Change: About The People, By The People

Every change big or small, has a compelling inherent logic. Not every effort succeeds. There is a case for change leaders to listen to their teams and celebrate the small victories, to win the war. It is possible, even desirable, to make small concessions which can become huge psychological signals for building the required coalition for change. Losing a few skirmishes to win the war is advisable, with change being more of a political process than a logical one.

I recall an organization that began a major change intervention, engaging a very renowned global consulting firm, to ensure a near magical upswing in its business fortunes in just four years. The logic was clearly intelligent, if not brilliant, and the promise seductive. The effort was being led by exceptional minds and the CEO ensured enough tailwind support. Yet in less than two years, the intervention was all but abandoned and buried. Such stories are not stray cases. More organizational change efforts fail, miserably or partially, than succeed. Clearly, this is not because of any lack of brilliance in thought, so I have often wondered what these bright business leaders not do well enough Every change, big or small, has a compelling inherent logic. Either newer leadership recruits bring in the fervour or a business downturn provokes reflection. Competitive pressures have their own triggers, and in some cases, it may just be the desire to do better. Whatever be the logic, changes invariably are about people and by people. Consequently, evangelizing the change agenda and engaging people fully are both vital. This is where most change strategies which seem very logical and comprehensive on a PowerPoint presentation, start floundering. Unfortunately, change is more a social process than a logical one, and leaders must realize that if one has to win the mind, one must equally win the heart.

In a frenzy to look accurate, change programs also have the susceptibility to ignore contrarian signals. Leaders either get blinded by the logic of their actions and miss the cues or worse, steam roll any dissenting views. In another organization, a number of senior managers switched off a change agenda because the change leader was acutely headstrong and dismissive of others’ views. Maybe the change logic was strong, but it is equally possible that it was not. This leader’s repeated shout-you-down gestures were reason for many workshops where people were consistently busy on their laptops and BlackBerry smart phones, visibly disengaged while the circus was on! The change anchor ended the two-day program asking if anyone had doubts and predictably there were none. Everyone was happy to go home – the participants for the sheer relief from the torture, and the change leader blissful that no questions meant full support! It is good to acknowledge that a different thinking is not always illogical, and allow some debate for a consensus to emerge. However, often certain decisions get imposed through a notional pretence of consultation and such superficial buy-in nurtures pockets of dissidence that can derail the change journey. Clearly, while change leaders must hear what people say, more so they should discern from what people do not say.

I have found that many change scripts are very rigid, and at times lose out on ground-level wisdom and experience. This alienates the goodwill and support of the troops, only to its essence when it is too late and the exercise already discredited. While those who are most led by logic and processes may think that every change initiative has one ‘right way’, my experience has been different. It is possible, even desirable, to make small concessions which can become huge psychological signals for building the required coalition for change. Losing a few skirmishes to win the war is advisable, with change being more of a political process than a logical one.

Another typical miss in change programs is the belief that celebrations must wait for the eventual victory of the change agenda. Many leaders are very conservative in their appreciation of small changes, which is a strategic blunder. Every small step can be a giant leap, if applauded. Change is not easy for anyone and top leaders must see the value of positive psychology. Celebrating small wins by applauding individuals and teams on their small accomplishments can go a long way, while waiting for the final victory may ensure there never is one.

The problem with change is that it triggers anxieties and insecurities. Each individual wants to know how the change addresses his or her personal interests. While not every organizational change will or should deliver personal gain to every individual, there is a need for change leaders to connect the strategic intent of change with each individual. Very often, companies are unable to go beyond how the change will benefit them - if only they could tweak this sales pitch!

Finally, organizational change is about people and it is good to maintain this on the agenda. One must communicate ceaselessly, and also listen and acknowledge. The subalterns must be able to connect with the change unequivocally; else, the logic of the generals will be wise to hear, but not inspiring enough to get the troops to win the war.

- Prabir Jha is currently the President and Group CHRO, Reliance Industries. His views are purely personal. He writes and tweets extensively on Careers, Leadership, Organizational Culture & Transformation @prabirjha .He can be reached on [email protected]

This article was published in People Matters, January 2011

http://www.peoplematters.in/article/2011/01/15/strategic-hr/change-about-the-people-by-the-people/776