Before setting out on any change, you have to consider the strategy that will be used to underpin the transition (Hersey and Blanchard, 1972). When push comes to shove, what rules will govern the decisions to be taken? In deciding this, you need to agree what ethos will underpin the assignment. Will it be one where the client and consumers are given the freedom to decide their personal rate of adaptation or will the consultant own the process and be responsible for controlling the change. Although there are degrees between the two extremes, any change will often have a bias in one direction – see Figure 30 .
Change Spectrum
At the client owns end of the spectrum the assumption is that giving people a new knowledge base modifies their behaviour. This is like the government campaign that tries to stop people smoking or to avoid drinking and driving. The objective is to offer people information about the destructive impact of cigarettes or drink. In the same way, an organization might try to modify behaviour by offering people knowledge about a new quality system, ideas scheme or advanced competitor product. The problem with this approach is that it can take time and often requires a high level of back-up. The benefit is that the change will last over a period of time and is not dependent on a directive transformation process.
At the other end of the spectrum, the client or consultant decides that urgent change is necessary and stimulates rapid behavioural change across the organization in the expectation that everyone will quickly adopt a new range of behaviours. This is seen in the way that the UK government introduced car seat belt and motorbike helmet laws to curb the high death rate on the roads. For an organization, this type of action is seen in the introduction of new process measures, quality audits or enhanced personal objectives. Each action will be reinforced by the idea that failure to reach the prescribed target will result in some form of disciplinary action. However, although behaviours will have been modified, people are doing it under duress. In many cases, deep-set attitudes and beliefs will not have been modified. Only over time might they start to embrace the new ways of working and accept that the new knowledge is valid as part of their normal working style.
Where the consultant owns the process it is dependent on the people or system that originated the change. If the support mechanism is taken away, there is every chance that the transformation will collapse and there will be a shift back to the original behaviours. Imagine a school that has been beset with problems of ill discipline, drugs and violence. A new head teacher might be able to ride in to save the day by enforcing a code of discipline. However, until the change has worked its way deep into the culture, there will be a high level of dependency on the new head. If for any reason he or she leaves there is a chance that the old problems will return. This approach is suitable in a school environment, where the churn rate is relatively low, but in fast-moving industries such as electronics, communications or marketing, such an approach is risky. The problem is that as people move on to new positions, so the initiatives they introduced fade away with their replacement introducing a new set of changes.
The net result is that when a client asks about the difficulty and length of time associated with a consultancy project, they might need to be educated about the trade-offs that must be made. You might be able to deliver speed and ease of implementation but add the caveat that it might not include true and deep gain in the short term. For example, a company that wants to improve its level of quality has a decision to make. Does it look for a quick implementation, on the premise that it will be owned and driven by one of the senior managers? Or does it take a longer view and allow people to absorb and adapt to the new ideas at their own rate of change? Although you can help facilitate the decision, the ultimate responsibility for the judgement must be down to the client.
One way to help the client make sense of the change process is to offer a simple tool that can describe the levels of change that sit across the change spectrum. Where at one end the consultants takes change and at the other the consultants simply supports the client whilst they make all the choices. Working from one end to the other down the spectrum it is possible to identify six types of change
|
|
|
At any time in the change process the consultant has to make a choice as to the most appropriate level of control they need to have and how much is managed by the client. Interestingly this raises an issue that must be overtly dealt with in the client stage of he change process. Just how much control wills the consultant have to affect the change process and how much do they want or need? It is s failure to agree such a simple factor that can lead to confusion at chaos in the change stage and whenever these two thins surface there is one guarantee, the client will suffer in the short term as the change falls apart and the consultant will suffer in the long term as the value of their brand is eroded.
However, assuming that the consultant doe have the necessary level of control, they will have to make choices about how to deploy the control and where on the change spectrum will be most effective taking into account the change, the clients level of experience and the client desire to accept control in this phase of the project.
The table below considers the implication of managing some of the levels:
|
|
Clearly this is a powerful change process. It offers speed, simplify, and a power of autonomy that can ensure that thins get done. However, the risk is that in getting such thins 'done' people can get scared. They can be worried by the loss of jurisdiction and power and this can have a dramatic impact on the performance of the business. The moment people are scared then it might be beneficial to consider other options in the change spectrum, possibly to help them why you are taking absolute control over the change. |
|
|
Where the Helm style is being used the consultant has handed over a degree of control to the client. This offers the benefit of signalling a desire to include other in the change process and so help the movement towards independence. However, the risk with this is that by giving people a taste of the action they want more. Like the farther who lets the young child play in the front garden, the child then wants to play in the street and feels resentment once the parent says no. |
|
|
The nudge is an interesting one is often used where companies need o downsize. It might be that a combination of factors including legislation, union power and political implications a company cannot move to a full blown redundancy programme. However it needs to lower the staff costs over time and so instigates a number of semi-soft action to help nudge the people out the door, This might be through briefings in the company paper about poor market conditions, briefs to union representative about poor trade conditions and grapevine or lobby stories about the fact that sacking will start if people don’t leave. All of this action leaves a large degree of control with the individual but the management offer s a general nudge like a tap dripping over night. Although this strategy can (and does) work, it can become a major irritation and provoke a backlash once people get really irritated. |
|
|
This is an interesting one. Although many people would argue that it is important to give people time and responsibility to make their own choices to effect a sustainable change. In many cases people don’t want this. I know of many instances where teams have been left to for their own conclusion about a problem and ended up shouting at the leader to just tell them what he wanted. So although this has its benefits, it is not always the answer. |
The important thing to note s that there is no right option with the change spectrum The key thing is to be aware of the following:
 |
What latitude do you have to regulate control you over the change activities. |
|
What type of intervention the client group prefers or expects. |
|
What preference do you have (often consultants will favour one particular type of intervention based upon their psychological preference and personal beliefs) |
|
What budget is available to support the intervention since the cost of effecting each of the levels will vary quite considerably – both for short and long run costs. |
|
What internal support processes are available since this will vary dependent upon the type of change effected. |
(c) Mick Cope
