Although, over the years Mick’s 7 Cs¹ course has had many forms most have included that striking exercise in the Continue stage where the course participants are asked to think about being the consumers of some particular and obviously intrusive change. They are asked to stand on the change ladder (laid out by those garish ropes on the floor) where their resistance to that change would be strongest. Most of the candidates move directly towards the Desire & Ethos ‘runs’ and a few stragglers loiter down in depths of Capability, Blueprint and Asset. Then each candidate is asked why he or she is standing where they are. Sometimes someone standing at ‘A’ will say, in appropriate role play, ‘I‘m really not willing to use all this new fangled equipment’ Often even by just saying that they realise that that kind of resistance, from their own words is clearly more ‘D’ or ‘E’ than plain old Assets. The stage is now set with most candidates at ‘D&E’ and a few stalwarts lingering between ‘A’ and ‘C’. For those who have not been on the course we won’t disclose what happens next, but at the end of the exercise there is a particularly illuminating question asked of each candidate. ‘What would it have taken for you to have not been so resistant to this change?’ The answers usually come easily and from the heart, sometimes similar gripes, and sometimes different. Things like “I’d like one of the ‘bosses’ to come down here on this floor and explain to me why all this change is necessary”. Amazingly very few of the answers are unreasonable in their standpoint or even in their cost to overcome.

 The main learning points are, as ever, self-evident, whist still being quite shocking: the sheer mass of resistance at D&E and the apparent simplicity of overcoming that resistance is explained by each recalcitrant individual. The trainee consultants on the course are perhaps left briefly with the belief that this kind of change is not that difficult to achieve and sustain. Then the focus of the course rightly moves on to how to ensure continuance in the face of such resistance.

However, there is one further striking revelation possible at this stage, perhaps only noticeable to people who have seen this session unfold more than once. Sometimes the things people say would be needed to allay their resistance to change echo repeatedly down the line like parrot talk, everyone requiring something very similar - and sometimes their needs are much, much more diverse.

This begs a very interesting question; which is easier to achieve and sustain?

a)      A change in a group of consumers where their resistance is strong but uniform. or

b)      A change where the resistance is perhaps less forceful, but the needs are diverse and maybe even opposing.

Now before this question can be answered we need to codify this phenonomen and explore the nature of the beast. 

Which brings us finally to the subject of this article – there is so much leverage for, or against change coming from the Existence rung that it is vital that we are able to map and understand what is happening in the group as well as each individual.  Where you find common ground in stakeholders’ responses, you have a firm unity of view from which you can build a response (no matter how strong the opposition) – but where you find multiple, or opposing views, things will not be so ready for progress.

We feel that there is value in looking closer at these issues – looking into a rung that lies beyond Existence, some sort of ‘F rung’ which looks at the issues which shape those views – the interpersonal factors.  We all know that there are hugely important intangibles, such a trust, out in that area – and that these can make and break the situation.  Think of the failure of many company mergers to truly achieve integration and synergy, think of the struggles between some organisations and the unions which represent their employees, think more tragically of the gulf between Israel and Palestine, and more hopefully, of the progress made in Northern Ireland. 

We define a new ‘thing’, for the time being called ‘F’ which is the extent to which a community or group is uniform in is response to change. If the F force is not with you, then your change work must start in this zone. 

In short – there is an F rung on the change ladder – or at least there is for groups (as individuals alone cannot have ‘F’, it is purely an interpersonal factor). Knowing more about group ‘F’ will give us a focus for some of the most important change interventions imaginable, those that build the trust and concern necessary to gain enough agreement amongst the stakeholders to allow changes to be considered.

A First Look at F.

The simplest clue to the dynamics of F lies in the sort of response that stakeholders give to the situation.  We feel there are three basic patterns.

If we can map the responses of the stakeholders into one of these basic patterns, we can understand what sort of change work will be necessary to make progress.

• Aligned – the most straightforward – there is a unity of perspective that, if harnessed, can be supported through appropriate action on the other levels of the change ladder.  Count yourself lucky if you find this situation, the other two are much more tricky.

• Bipolar – in this situation you are likely to find yourself in a fairly hot situation.  There may be two (or more) ‘opinions’ about what is happening, and what needs to happen, but most importantly, there will be a significant investment in each of these that basically states that ‘we are right and they are wrong’.  To go ahead assuming that one of these points of view is the right one takes enormous risks with the sustainability of the change.  Tragically these situations can result in stalemate – and the ‘death’ of all the parties involved (as the rest of the world passes them by).  Interventions need to concentrate first on establishing enough unity of purpose to motivate the necessary changes. 

• Chaotic – this situation is likely to be ‘cold’, there will be a low awareness of any issue and little interest in making anything happen.  Perspectives may be very varied amongst the stakeholders, but they will probably be very open to change – if they can be interested enough in the first place.  Progress against this sort of background is likely to appear simple, but a consultant doing this is basically deluding himself or herself, their stakeholders are not on board and will not be making any changes once the consultant has gone away.

 Getting to grips with F.

 So far, we have argued for F, and its basic types, by simplistically assuming that you can assess the situation by simply asking people for their perspectives.  Of course, it is likely to be more difficult to plot your place, and way, in real life as one faces the sheer size of the task (there could be thousands of stakeholders), and the presence of shadows (for example the consultant may be told what the others think they want to hear, just so as not to disappoint them).  Getting a useful grip on the situation is the first task.

Finding which of the three basic situations you are dealing with will not be a difficult task – its more a question of appreciating the issues at play and how strongly they are held. 

• Aligned – there will be a hum of impatience and frustration – people will be ready to talk and there will be a lot of agreement.  The action is to get on with it.

• Bipolar – there will be an acute sensitivity about what is said and done – there will be a lot of ‘off the record’ advice about who to talk to and what to say or not say.  There is likely to be a history of disagreement, which may be ‘hot’ at the moment, or merely smouldering.  The ‘us and them’ words will be used a lot.  The action is not to run to action, but to try to create a readiness to suspend hostilities and talk about what is really happening.  In effect you are saying ‘Calm down, calm down’.

• Chaotic – there will be a low awareness of the issue, or its importance.  The chief struggle will be to get anyone’s attention.  After that it will be a question of advocating the cause and its possibilities, and looking for reactions.  This is a classic ‘wake up’ scenario, which requires an authoritative client, and a real ability to communicate the value of the change.  As people ‘wake up’ there is a danger that the consultant / client will be seen is irritants, rather than as adding value.

Strategies for Building enough E from your F.

Having read the runes of your F situation – the question is ‘so what’?  We hope you accept our premise that you cannot ignore it – if there is no unity of purpose among the stakeholders (ie, shared E) you will not be going ahead with enough of their commitment to make a real, ‘sticky’ change.  Therefore what is needed is an approach, or choices, about how the build enough E to make a useful platform for change.

We have already argued that where your stakeholders are aligned, you already have the go ahead – so get on with it.  This section is therefore about what to do with the bipolar and chaotic situations.  In each situation we run through the basic steps that it appears to us that the consultant can take.

Bipolar (or ‘Calm down, calm down’).

• Step 1 – Establish your bona fide credentials.  You must be accepted as a trustworthy partner by all sides – your motives are open and seen to be interested only in what is not arguable (ie, that what is done must be useful and acceptable).  You disclose your feeling about the situation, you seek to learn about it – how the stakeholders see it, and what their hopes are.  You bring in what you understand, but you don’t push it.

• Step 2 - You talk with the stakeholders about how progress could be made.  Seek to have them accept the need for a listening stance as well as a speaking stance.  If they are ready for this, they are ready to begin on the conflict. This is often the difficult phase of getting opposing factions to accept that from the other side’s point of view what they do is reasonable.

• Step 3 - You focus on building an environment where the protagonists can begin to listen to each other, and venture their suggestions. Moving towards ‘shared success’. You should try to slow down a rush for them to close if you feel that this agreement is not being ‘pulled’ by all parties (but ‘pushed’ by one).

•  Step 4 – You focus on what would be useful to establish a longer-term facility to consider these issues (that is, you are looking at what procedures could enable to protagonists to build a baseline common identity – from which action can be generated). This in itself is an interesting strategy to ensure a change is sticky.

Bill Isaacs, an American organisational development consultant has called this latter facility a ‘container’², which is a useful metaphor – it is something that is held and valued – but is strong enough to hold whatever conflict there may be.

Chaos (or ‘Wake up’).

• Step 1 – Again, the first step is to establish your credentials.  In this case you are here because your client is concerned about the possible impact of such and such an issue.  The question is, what does this stakeholder think.  Here you are acting as a sort of journalist, putting together the picture as a commentary.

• Step 2 – Try to show the range of perceptions – for example by communicating the outcome of the step one investigations.  Look for any response and assess how unified that response is.

• Step 3 – Where you find a stakeholder does seem to be alert and interested, seek to generate a unity of purpose through some form of inclusive action group.  The basic strategy is to keep this group growing – so it must not begin to lock out interest from others.  If it does, the risk is that the situation begins to generate opposition.

Taking the container metaphor again, this strategy basically grows a container through communication and invitation.

 Social Capital and F.

 We were struck, when talking through these scenarios, that the common starting point was this sense of needing to build enough common interest to act as a container for the issue.  The American economist, Francis Fukuyama studied the impact of this sort of ability in his book ‘Trust’³, and showed how societies that had the ability to trust (act on an assumption of goodwill) were more successful – avoiding the costs of checking and negotiating.  Of course, they ran a risk of their openness being exploited, as there were no checks, but the point was that there was no need for the checks because people were trustworthy enough for it to be worth the risk.

 What Fukuyama found out was that the societies, which were good at trust, had established cultural practices that reinforced trustworthiness by building social processes where people could get the feel of other people.  These same social processes acted as platforms ‘for people to discuss what was happening’, and action grew from these platforms.  Platforms, by the way, are techno-speak for things such as churches, hobby clubs, sports clubs, and local democracy -a form of physical container.  There will probably be a correlation between the F scenario we find, and the structure of ‘social processes’ in the group.

a)      an ‘aligned’ group will probably have frequent meetings and high trust, 

b)      a bipolar group in is likely to have very tenuous meetings  - often requiring three rooms so the two sub-groups can meet separately to consider opposing proposals (sound familiar?). The conflicting stakeholders may be very aligned groups in themselves with well-established social patterns.

c)      The chaotic (or is it apathetic) group will probably have no strong group processes – and its people may not think of themselves as a group. 

It seems that voluntary communication is a huge shaping factor in determining group ‘E’.  The F rung seems to be about the communication processes that shape these identities.  To have a strong ‘container’ is a facility for groups to build enough basic trust, that they can then begin to deal with conflict from enough shared E to provide a firm platform for any changes.

Finding a name for F.

In the tradition of the 7Cs, we need to find a suitable F word to describe this rung.  Here are some of the possible candidates – perhaps you can help us decide the best.

• Framework – which does get across the sense that there is a structure shaping the intangibles – but misses out on the dynamic element.

• Foundation – which indicates that what we are talking about is the first point of consideration, and that other interventions will only be as good as what is happening at this level.  Its not a very exciting word though.

• Fraternity – which focuses in on the interpersonal element that is important here, and how there is a sense that there is a level of coherence and goodwill that makes the difference.

• Field – which is a good scientific word, conjuring comparisons with electromagnetic fields, or perhaps the ‘field of play’.  This choice would let us think about the background to what we are looking at – but it carries no sense of value and direction.

• Force – which does bring out the dynamic element, and is a very suitable label for understanding what is shaping the situation.  The only real problem here is the Star Wars overtone (but it does mean that Star Wars has a point – the force is out there to be understood).

Let the Force be With You.

To wrap this article up, we believe that the change ladder can be usefully extended by another rung to cast more light on the shadows which shape so much organisational (and indeed interpersonal) behaviours.  This F rung clarifies the forces that shape the stakeholders’ very purpose and identity – their sense of what is right and what would be wrong.  In some tragic cases, the problems lie within this zone, and action further along the ladder will not ultimately make a difference.  In other cases there is enough trust and unity of purpose that the force is truly with you, and real, sustainable changes can be achieved.

So, we believe there is an F in the change ladder – it just needs a name.  We are interested in your suggestions and any comments you may have on the issues raised in this paper.

Vote for your F Word.

• Framework

• Foundation

• Fraternity

• Field

• Force

Other suggestions (polite please):

(c) Andy McClarnon and Mike Moir

 References: 

 1.  The Change Ladder.  From ‘The 7Cs of Consulting’, Mick Cope.  Pearson Education 2000

2.  Container.   From ‘Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together’, William Isaacs.  Currency / Doubleday 1999

3.  Trust.  Francis Fukuyama. The Free Press 1995

(c) Mick Cope