John Gunkler, replying to Artemis' questions in LO21667, wrote...
>>Shou[l]d change be [manageable] through a list of behavioural recipes and
>>managerial competenc[i]es or not?
>>Is it dangerous [to] assume change [i]s a simple phenomenon attached as a
>>sub theme to organisational behaviour?
>
>To the second question, I want to answer resoundingly, "Yes!" -- it is
>very dangerous to assume organizational change is a "simple phenomenon."
>I can assure you, from long, hard-won experience, that it is not!
I'll agree with John's answer to the second question -- and add some
reasons. Assuming change is a simple phenomenon encourages inept
interventions by way of encouraging the inept to intervene.
"Intervention" is as demanding and complex an area of practice as can be
found in organizations. It is not a simple subset of the managerial or
executive skill set, yet many people view it as such. I can't tell you
how many people I've heard stand up and announce, "I'm a change agent" and
who obviously knew very little about the art and science of intervening in
complex organizations. Worse, they did not seek counsel from those who do
know something about it. As a result, people try to make simple changes
in complex systems and screw things up mightily. They also attempt
complex changes in complex systems and wind up driving the wagon off a
cliff. Dangerous? You bet it's dangerous. Moreover, the naive view of
change is often coupled with a lack of understanding of the organization
and that compounds the danger.
I'm not sure I agree with John's answer to the second question ("Maybe")
because the question begins with "Should" not "Could."
"Should" change be manageable through recipes and competencies? That's
like asking if the sun should come up tomorrow. Sure. But that's a wish
statement, possibly the basis for a goal and possibly not.
"Could" change be manageable through recipes and competencies? That's a
feasibility question. My answer is No. A large part of what I know about
change and change management is tacit knowledge which, like John's, was
obtained through "hard won experience." That doesn't go into a recipe and
it won't show up on anyone's list of competencies. Unlike John, I won't
call that "self-serving." It is a simple fact of organizational life,
true of many others as well as me.
The core of Artemis' questions traces to the systematization of
professional practice. Much of so-called professional practice is in fact
reducible to formulas, recipes, checklists and even algorithms. Reducing
it to such is the basis for much of what we know as "paraprofessional"
work. In the 1980s, much of my consulting practice was devoted to
systematizing the work of others. In some cases, the work of these others
was completely or almost completely automated (insurance underwriters and
claims examiners are two examples). But their work, although knowledge
work, was information based. The base of an interventionist's work is the
organization itself. What is being operated upon are dynamic
relationships, many of which have time delays and feedback loops.
Consequently, the interventionist must study and come to understand the
organization on which he will be operating. Otherwise, no matter how well
stocked the change agent's tool kit might be, the wrong job might be
selected or the wrong tool chosen.
Thus, to belabor the obvious, most successful change management efforts
I've witnessed or been a part of, have been marked by thorough knowledge
and skill of change and change management, and of the organization itself,
most especially, its key people and their relationships to one another.
Sometimes, these two knowledge bases can be blended in a single person
but, more often than not, the change agentry expertise is brought to bear
from the outside and the knowledge of the organization is brought to bear
from the inside. Marrying those two knowledge bases is task all its own.
>To the first question, after some further reflection, I have to say,
>"Maybe." It depends upon how complex and deep the managerial competencies
>are. Now I assume, from his second question and the use of the word
>"recipes" in the first, that Artemis is thinking about simple, formulaic,
>training-program-like lists of competencies when he writes this first
>question. If so, then I change my answer to "No." I don't believe that
>the competencies required to lead an organization through change are
>simple and shallow. Of course this is a bit self serving for me to say,
>since it means that my competencies (leading organizations through change
>is what I do) are somehow "special."
>
>On the other hand, is what I do so "special" that others cannot acquire
>the competencies to do it? Of course not. I have taught others to do
>what I do, and there are some competency areas which, if mastered, will
>certainly improve the chances of success. And there are even some
>"recipes" (relatively straightforward process models, techniques,
>teaching materials, etc.) that are very useful to me in my work.
Finally, I agree with what John says in the paragraph immediately above.
Change agentry is not all mystery and witch doctor magic. But learning it
requires an investment of time over time. You see, the effects of many
interventions in organizations are often far removed in space and time
from the point of intervention (that statement, by the way, traces to
David Bower at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research
in the early 1970s). Consequently, it takes time to confirm the efficacy
of one's actions and thus to learn from them. In short, change agents
aren't trained, they develop and they're developed.
--Regards,
Fred Nickols Distance Consulting "Assistance at A Distance" http://home.att.net/~nickols/distance.htm nickols@worldnet.att.net (609) 490-0095
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>