CHANGE MANAGEMENT ARTICLE
Avoiding the Ten Trap Doors
by Dr. Ord Elliott
Introduction
From as early as the 1960s, there has been a recognition that organizations can operate more efficiently and more productively. However, ever since that time, we have suffered through a bewildering array of management fads and change initiatives—each designed to create the perfect organization. Many of these initiatives have ultimately cost organizations billions of dollars without achieving their goal; others have been extremely successful. The difference between the failures and successes? The execution of the change program itself.
There is no doubt that organizations need to change. They need to organize work around processes and projects, and they need to communicate more efficiently and effectively. But the journey to improvement is a dangerous path littered with trap doors that can diminish an organizations precious resources, including time, money and energy. By recognizing these trap doors—and knowing when the organization is headed for or even in one—individuals can guide the organization quickly along the road to improvement.
1. Simplicity: The first trap door is simplicity. The well-known flavor-of-the-month syndrome is based on the mistaken belief that there is one simple intervention that will solve all the organization’s problems. Early quality programs often fell through this trap door. There is no one methodology that is going to cure all ills. It takes a combination of planning, reorganizing, process improvement and problem solving. Another offshoot of this trap door is believing that sufficient staffing will solve a productivity problem—the mistaken belief that throwing more people at a process will fix the problem.
There are no quick fixes or one-size-fits-all programs that will transform an organization. Everyone must recognize that change is a process and a constant evolution. The change needs to be a mindset of continually examining processes and making the organization work better.
2. Complexity: At the other end of the spectrum is the complexity trap door. When there are multiple programs that are not tied together, the result is confusion and a stalling of any improvement. In spite of everyone’s best intentions, the isolated efforts cannot feed each other synergistically without a linkage between the programs.
Do a realistic assessment of all the initiatives within the organization and how they fit together, making sure that any new initiative adds to or builds off of existing initiatives.
3. Time: Cycle time is a serious trap door for change managers. Re-engineering efforts that take years to show results are not effective. Striving for perfect planning can lead to losing sight of the need to “do the work”.
Large changes need to be built out of small blocks of achievement. A grand end goal is fine, but the small measurable steps that show progress today, this week or this month are mandatory. People need to see progress and improvement every step of the way.
4. Incompatibility: Choosing incompatible approaches represents another trap door. Take, for example, the development of a quality program with a separate bureaucracy and structure that overlaps the regular organization. This will turn into two separate entities that are managed separately—the real business and the business of achieving quality which end up competing for resources. When times get tough, managers will focus on the real business, not the business of quality. Any change or improvement effort that is viewed and managed separately from the business is headed for disaster.
Choosing a program that requires a separate structure, or that doesn’t integrate well with the business, takes time and energy away from the core business. It is the management team’s job to reconcile the different approaches and make the hard decisions on what goes and what stays from any given approach. The change initiative should be aligned with the business results desired and managed along side all other business initiatives. Otherwise, at some point, they are seen as less relevant—something that is just for show, or going through the motions.
5. Scope: Using different methodologies at different levels of the organization is the next trap door. If different levels of the organization adopt different approaches to planning and problem solving, these operations become more complex and everything will take more time. Communication between management levels becomes impaired as translations from one methodology to another become necessary. Adopt methodologies and planning processes that can be used at any level within the organization.
6. Learning: Approaches that require learning excessive jargon and difficult tools represent another trap door. If the learning curve for the program is too steep, it presents a barrier to implementing the program and an on-going barrier for new people who are brought in part-way through the process.
It is important to adopt programs and technologies that use plain English instead of complex terminology. People should be able to quickly learn a new tool and integrate it into their workflow (see Trap Door #8) instead of becoming dependent upon external tools and quality program bureaucracies. Shorter learning curves also ensure that more people can adopt the new practices.
7. Intricacy: Another trap door is using overly intellectual or intricate approaches to selling the change effort. People don't have the time to learn elaborate or highly sophisticated systems. Additionally, the more complexity in any program, the more resistance there will be. Change is difficult enough, but overwhelming people with intricacies can assure the failure of any initiative.
Target the effort at the average busy person, not someone working on their PhD in the subject. Quick, graphic, easy-to-use tools and explanations work best for everyone.
8. Transferability: Failure to transfer quality technology into the basic way of doing business is the eighth trap door. As long as continuous improvement efforts are treated as separate practices, they will require additional energy to maintain, and they will require additional time to execute.
Only by transferring these practices into the business processes, can organizations add value to its products and build true change capability. This also refers back to Trap Door #5 because tools with a wider scope will transfer more readily into the business.
9. Special Interests: Special interest groups are a common trap door. Various interest groups—like benchmarking, quality improvement or training—often have separate agendas that they are promoting within the company. Unfortunately, these individual goals may sub-optimize the overall performance of the organization. It is important to examine agendas and select carefully the people who are going to add value.
10. Measurement: The final trap door is lack of measurement. It is important to know if a program is taking too much time or energy. Once a program has been implemented, it should be fairly self-sustaining. There should not be a need to keep pumping energy into change efforts to improve them. If you constantly need to involve the CEO and constantly need to pump more people and money into the effort, then you need to look for alternate approaches.
A clear definition of success, and how it is measured along the way, provides a view into what is working and what isn’t. A good change program should generate its own momentum. Rather than stealing resources from the business, it becomes a part of the business. The program should inspire people to say, “That works!” and move them to start doing it.
Change will not happen quickly if the continuous improvement program is a series of external events that require a continuous infusion of time, money and energy. Change is a difficult road, but by avoiding these trap doors you can quickly be on your way to improving quality, cutting costs and growing the business successfully.
Background
Founder of ChangeCompanion, Dr. Ord Elliott is an authority on change management with over 30 years of experience in organizational change, strategy implementation and organizational development.
|
