Sometimes, when an organization needs radical change, the people who least realize it are the people inside the organization—the leaders and employees who themselves are the “molecules” of the organization.
It’s one of the fascinating conundrums of organizational behaviour.
And I’ve witnessed it first-hand, as an employee and a consultant or interim executive.
In fact, a significant chunk of my work with many clients is—initially—preaching the gospel of change: Trying to get employees and senior executives to grasp why they must change religion to get salvation for their organization.
It’s almost comedic that the very same senior leaders who bring me in to help with their problems need to be persuaded and convinced to adopt a different creed.
That’s partly what makes it a conundrum.
That and the fact that, in business and in life, most people don’t really want to learn and grow—not when growth entails stretching themselves beyond their comfort zones.
They prefer to stay as they are—to keep the same mindsets, viewpoints, habits, ways of thinking, etc.—and yet achieve different outcomes and results, in their lives and careers. Like someone who wants to continue life as a chubby couch potato, stuffing their face with junk food every day, and still become a svelte epitome of humanity.
“Sometimes, when an organization needs radical change, the people who least realize it are the people inside”
If you look around you, I suspect you’ll be able to identify a few people like this. (And since you’re here reading this now, I suspect you’re not one of them.)
It’s the same with organizations, which at their core are basically interconnections of people.
I was reminded of this by Rod Liddle’s splendid article in The Spectator about the BBC and its current woes.
It should be compulsory reading for BBC board members, senior leaders and employees.
It’d also be valuable for staff in other organizations, public or private, big or small.
Some may be facing niggling problems.
Others may be sailing along happily, not realizing that some trouble may be around the corner—despite warning signs that are clear to people outside the organization.
People inside the organization are often unable to “smell the rotting fish” for all sorts of reasons.
At times, it’s a reflection of conformity bias across the organization.
Or it may be collective bias rearing its head as groupthink, shared lack of external awareness, a self-perpetuating-yet-counterproductive culture, or some other organizational blind spot.
Or it could be that the organization has become stuck, fat and lazy, drunk on past success, or complacent for some other reason.
“Senior leaders and employees often can’t smell the rotting fish due to bias or other organizational blind spots”
Whatever the case—just like the BBC right now—such organizations are much like our couch potato.
They want to cling to their current religion, with its intrinsic beliefs, values, modus operandi, culture, performance perspectives, leadership ethos, etc., and yet not have the attendant troubles.
Good gracious!
Being blind to the need to change religion can mean that failure is already predetermined if the organization does subsequently embark on a change programme.
Because the reluctance to accept the need for change in the first place can linger in people’s psyches. It may simmer beneath the surface and inhibit employees from embracing the change journey wholeheartedly.
And if they don’t really buy into it, then the programme will falter or the change won’t stick.
I’ve seen this so many times; you probably have too.
That’s why I invest so much energy and attention into preaching the gospel with clients up front (and continuing through the change implementation).
Selling a change agenda fruitfully is a cornerstone of effectiveness in change management.
Trying to create change that is not centered on effectiveness is like trying to carry water in a sieve. You’re simply creating a destiny built on quicksand.
“Preaching the gospel to fruitfully sell a change agenda is a cornerstone of effective change management”
The requirement for effectiveness isn’t just about embedding the gospel of change. It includes other key elements—characteristics that often differentiate successful projects or programmes from doomed ones, for example:
- A clearly defined goal
- A competent project or programme lead
- Adequate investment and resource allocation, including a solid project team
- Clear definition of critical success factors
- A well-structured plan, with key milestones and scheduled progress reviews
- Effective control or governance mechanisms, including comprehensive accountabilities and robust risk management
- If appropriate (as is usually the case for extensive or complex change initiatives), a dependable steering group with seasoned members, including a project sponsor or champion who knows which way is up
- A sound communications approach.
When change initiatives lack any of these crucial elements, they create confusion, anxiety, frustration or dissonance.
And the greater the lack, the greater the likelihood of failure.
The roots of that failure or the contrasting success are firmly planted in the commitment of senior leaders and employees.
Right now, it doesn’t sound like there’s a shred of commitment to change among BBC executives and the rank and file; not when they haven’t yet realized and acknowledged that the organization needs salvation.
And that’s despite the preaching from commentators like Rod Liddle and condemnation from so many observers outside the organization, including its viewers.
Perhaps its unique position as a public service broadcaster funded by a licence fee has made the BBC complacently bigoted.
Or maybe it’s because the prophets doing the preaching are outside the organization; maybe if they were inside, the gospel would take seed and yield fruit.
What about your organization—is it adaptively charting and sailing a course of success, or do you need to be the prophet preaching inside?
