An awful lot has been spoken and written about change, and about those who grapple with it. Some make it out to be such a very simple thing, to be embraced without care or concern. Some make it out to be a dangerously complex thing, only to be attempted by the foolhardy or possessed. But in truth, successfully managing change lies somewhere in between these two extremes. Breathing in and out carries risks day after day, but with the right mindset, good planning and the right approach, most of us get through the 24 hour (changing) cycle unscathed.
In many ways, the typical shortcomings in anticipating and dealing with change are decidedly 'Golem-esque'. In folklore, the Golem is the mythical 'righter of wrongs'. With a combination of absolute certainty and unerring commitment, the Golem imposes his Master's will, but invariably creates mayhem in his wake as a result of a very 'single minded' approach. Super intent. Dire result. Too many of us view change like the Golem, in a single-dimensional way. Change can be the panacea for many organisational ills, but oversimplify - set loose the equivalent of your 'Change Golem' - and you may find that you have taken the equivalent of one step forward and two steps back.
In my experience, the key to successful change is neither checklist nor black art, but rather it's about managing at least four fundamental dichotomies. These apply to every change situation but not necessarily in the same way. And that's why change is complex. Dichotomies scream 'too difficult to try' at the planning stage; they demand mental and physical exertion in the delivery; and we invariably never fully nail them. So what are the key change dichotomies?
Dichotomy #1: 'Top down and bottom up' - Significant change is an all consuming, 'whole organisation' kind of thing. As a result, if you focus purely on gaining and maintaining senior management commitment because this is 'controllable', then the energy invariably peters out in the wake of the next operational crisis. Alternatively, try and encourage change solely from the 'grass roots' to build a solid foundation, and departmental silos will absolutely squeeze the living daylights out of it. So successful change needs to achieve both, in the right proportion for the business and the context, and get your change supporters onside to provide the organisational 'glue'.
Dichotomy #2: 'Hearts and minds' - Let's deal with the 'mind' bit first. Change has to stack up from a business case perspective. The figures have to be compelling. Yes, there are potentially more benefits to organisational change than purely financial, but if the organisation is committed to a substantial investment in the short term, are you absolutely clear (and convinced) about the benefits to be derived in the longer-term? The equally important dimension regarding 'hearts', is slightly more difficult. Change has to be perceived as beneficial not just to the 'inner sanctum', but to every other influential stakeholder - whether within or outside the organisation. And you win the battle for hearts at the individual level by communicating early, often and with dexterity.
Dichotomy #3: 'Inspiration and perspiration' - In this sense, inspiration is very much about what I would define as leadership. Visionary, compelling, innovative. In my view, too many leaders 'front up' with their colleagues too readily and too soon - 'get with the change programme or get out'. But this is a kop out. The commitment that flows from inspiration is far more enduring than anything derived from fear or loathing. However, inspiration alone will not suffice - successful change also needs plenty of honest to goodness management. In other words, a clear change project structure, with rigorous process discipline, and attention to detail. Not necessarily the most likely bedfellow of inspiration, but every bit as important. Macro and micro. Strategic and tactical. Change 'ying and yang'.
Dichotomy #4: 'Journey and destination' - And so to the final dichotomy. Should change be viewed as an ongoing journey, an enduring quest for better, but where delivery and measurement of benefits could end up in the 'too difficult box'? Or should we view significant organisational change as a discrete and ring-fenced project to enable transparent and attributed outcomes, but potentially sacrifice flexibility and synergy? Again, the answer lies in finding the 'right' balance between these two extremes. Change programmes should combine short-term goals with longer-term objectives; should combine measurability with flexibility; and should deliver both benefits and new problems to be solved.
In conclusion, consider the words of Andy Warhol: 'they always say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself'. Partners in practices of all sizes know the truth of this statement. Ultimately change requires action. Change leadership is always complicated, is absolutely situation specific, and there will be no respite. But procrastination carries greater risks. So consider the four dichotomies for your practice and your clients....and beware the 'Change Golem' (one size fits all) mindset.
Michael McDonnell FCA
Partner, BDO