Several years ago, I agreed to take part in a workshop looking at the nature and dynamics of organizational change. The central question revolved around the relative merits of taking either a revolutionary or an evolutionary approach; with the case in favour of each being put by two other contributors. I'll call them Tom and Harry.
Anyway, when I was asked by the session organizer which side of the fence I would be on, I told her that there was only one place that I could be – and that was on the fence. Or, to be more precise, on both sides at the same time.
When my turn came, I shared the above brief exchange with the workshop participants before continuing as follows...
On reflection, that sounds as if I'm arguing in favour of taking the best bits of Tom’s and Harry’s arguments and blending them together in some way. Either that or I’m hedging my bets. Instead, I want to argue from a different perspective altogether. So a better way of putting it might be that, if we think of Tom and Harry as sitting on opposite sides of the table, then I’m looking at things from underneath it.
The implicit assumption in the debate so far is that managers can choose the best way to effect change; and that, having made that choice, everyone else will follow, provided that the formal changes are implemented as intended.
Armed with this assumption, managers across the world spend hundreds of millions of pounds each year in trying to bring about organizational change by design. Whether that’s through restructuring, cost reduction programmes, M&A, new systems developments, cultural change programmes or whatever. And yet, despite their best efforts, what happens in practice often falls well short of the sought-after benefits.
Not only does this affect the competitiveness and viability of commercial enterprises, or the successful delivery of services provided through the public sector, it also drains people’s energy, breeds disaffection and cynicism amongst staff, undermines managers’ credibility, and so on.
Shifting the patterns
So can we do anything to change that? To improve the odds? My answer is “Yes”; but only if we are prepared to challenge some of our cherished assumptions about how organization works and what role managers play in this process. And this means paying attention to the micro-level of organization – that is, to the everyday conversational interactions that are taking place continuously. It is here, in the give and take of people's everyday exchanges, that they make sense of what’s going on, make choices and take action - or not. And it’s through the widespread interplay of these 'local' (i.e. small-group and one-to-one) interactions – both within and beyond what are thought of as the formal organizational boundaries – that what whatever happens, happens.
For the next few minutes, therefore, I want you to think about this conversational process that is taking place continuously in all organizational contexts. Some conversations occur in formal settings (‘above the table’, so to speak) with structured agendas and people acting out their formal roles and relationships. Most, though, take place informally; or 'under the table’, as I’m calling it here..
These informal conversations might relate to specific formal events (such as agreeing positions in advance of a meeting; discussing what one really thinks about things during breaks in the formal proceeding; or replaying earlier exchanges, by making eye contact at key points during the session itself). At other times, they will just reflect everyday aspects of organizational life (such as informal working relationships, social cliques, gossiping, networking, political influencing, chance interactions, private one-to-ones, and so on). Although none of these informal ("shadow-side") dynamics are reflected in structure charts, reported in official documents, or referred to in formal meetings, they have a powerful effect on what actually gets done, how it gets done and what arises from it. Crucially, from today’s perspective, none of the conventional approaches to change take account of this – wherever these sit along the spectrum from Tom’s form of revolution to Harry’s evolutionary approach.
Am I bovvered?
But do we really need to bother with this?
Many managers might reasonably argue: "We already have clear strategies and plans that set out what we intend to do – or, if we don’t, we can develop them and (that awful phrase!) 'roll them out'. We’ve got objectives, milestones and dashboards to enable us to focus attention and monitor progress. In Tom’s case, we have highly sophisticated programme- and project-management systems, to help us implement change in a structured and controlled way. We have role descriptions, competency frameworks, behavioural standards, personal performance and development plans, and team- or personal targets to keep individuals and teams on track. And so on … Surely, they might argue, we already have enough things in place to ensure that changes are implemented effectively. All we need to make sure is that we do them better and get the right!
It’s true that 'in our right hand’, so to speak, we’ve got barrel-loads of models, tools and techniques that have been designed with the aim of helping us deliver planned organizational change. The problem is that these are based on conventional wisdom about how organization works and what this means in relation to management practice. And, as I’m arguing here, this approach is seriously flawed.
To begin with, this focuses solely on the formal, rational, structured aspects of organization. And it ignores the hidden, messy and informal bits over here, 'in my left hand', through which outcomes emerge in practice. Many of the conventional tools [RIGHT HAND] might work okay for matter-of-fact changes in the design and development of structures, systems and procedures. But, in terms of organizational change and performance, this is only part of the story – and rarely the most important part.
Yes, it makes sense for managers to make best use of any formal systems and procedures that might be 'in play' [RIGHT HAND] – although ‘less is more’ might be a useful rule of thumb to use here! But ,however well they do that, they will not succeed in any meaningful sense unless they get to grips with the informal ‘under the table’ stuff as well [LEFT HAND]. Too often, the right hand doesn’t know what the left-hand’s doing. Or doesn’t want to know. Or doesn’t think that it matters.
So where does that leave us – and what can we do?
If we continue to imagine that my RIGHT HAND represents the formal, rational, structured elements of organization and my LEFT HAND the hidden, messy and informal dynamics, let’s think about what typically happens when change is formally introduced according to conventional wisdom.
At one extreme, Tom has argued passionately and eloquently for a revolutionary approach to change; commanding and controlling its introduction at speed, with very little up-front involvement of people more broadly, and using a highly structured methodology to programme- and project-manage the change. At the other end of the spectrum, Harry has put forward a powerful argument in favour of more participation and greater flexibility in the methods used and the outcomes that are achieved. And both Harry and Tom have emphasised the importance of keeping people informed as to what changes are taking place and why.
These formal, structured elements are often carried out very well, in a technical sense. And it’s true that, as Tom’s examples illustrate, these can also be carried out very quickly; provided, that is, that the need for involvement advocated by Harry is discounted. However, the change is not complete when the new structure has been announced and the structural boxes filled; or when the new systems have been installed and formal training carried out; or when two merging companies become a new legal entity; and so on. In terms of our left and right hands, we’ve only reached this point … [HEELS OF HANDS IN CONTACT, WITH PALMS AND FINGERS APART].
Change can't be considered to be in any sense successful, until people are fully 'tuned-in' to the new requirements as regards their own contribution, and have integrated any required shifts in perspective, practice and performance into their own ways of working ... [FINGERS INTERTWINED]. And this can’t be achieved simply by relying on the formal approaches over here [RIGHT HAND]. It means managers actively engaging with what’s going on over here [LEFT HAND]. Otherwise, people will still carry on interacting with each other and making sense of what’s going on; but they are likely to do this in ways that serve ends other than those relating to the formal change agenda. In some cases, it might spur them and others to go off in a different direction altogether; as they coalesce informally around particular organizing themes that emerge from the new arrangements.
The problem for managers from a conventional viewpoint (whether as advocated by Harry or by Tom) is that they are 'in control' of these things [RIGHT HAND] - in the sense of being formally in charge - but they are not in control of these [LEFT HAND]. The response of some managers, when outcomes don’t match what was supposed to happen, is to do more of the ‘right-hand’ stuff to try to gain control. This is the ‘do it better and get it right response’: “If I do more stuff over here – more controls, more detailed procedures, extra targets, etc – I shall be able to overcome the problems we’ve had with implementation and get things back on track. This is an understandable response, perhaps, given the sometimes quasi-religious belief in order, predictability and control that dominates conventional management 'wisdom'. But all that this is likely to do in practice is to stoke up more activity over here [LEFT HAND]. And this is just as likely to reinforce the behaviours that caused the initial disconnect between what management said and what actually happened on the ground, as it is to achieve the sought-after outcome.
In other words, it’s not what managers introduce formally that matters, it’s how people make sense of what's going on and act into the future. And this is based on what they see, hear and feel, etc, as shared through their everyday conversations and interactions. It is what happens in these constantly shifting conversational networks that determines what emerges in response to management initiatives – not the initiatives themselves. And it’s here, in the give and take of everyday conversations and interactions, that we can see the roots and dynamics of evolutionary change, revolutionary change and everything in between.
So what do I mean by this?
As the content and patterns of conversations change, so do the actions that flow from them and so do all things organizational. In some cases the ‘change’ that takes place is simply a reinforcement of current thinking – deepening the sense-making channels, so to speak, and increasing the likelihood that similar sense-making and action-taking will occur in the future. At the same time, although these established patterns tend to channel sense-making down familiar, culturally acceptable pathways, the possibility exists that novel outcomes will emerge from this same conversational process. This might happen, for example, because of a simple misunderstanding, a chance event, a humorous remark that triggers a new perspective, the coming together of a diversity of viewpoints, or deliberate leadership attempts at reframing. So evolution (or flow) is continuous and inevitable – as the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said, “You can’t stand in the same river twice”.
But what about revolution?
If the themes that dominate everyday talk reflect those in the formal, ‘above the table’ organization, it is likely that outcomes will be largely in line with plan [FINGERS INTERLOCKED]. If, however, the conversations are out of kilter with the official line, then it is very unlikely that things will turn out as planned. Instead, people will naturally act in line with these different themes, leading to different actions and different outcomes [SPREAD FINGERS – LEFT HAND DOMINANT].
In some instances, informal coalitions will form deliberately around ‘left-hand’ themes that challenge the established position. If these seemingly ‘subversive’ perspectives gain sufficient momentum and support, they will eventually emerge from ‘the shadows’ as formal propositions. At that point, one or more of these might radically shift the existing strategies, policies, power bases, and so on. That is, lead to a revolutionary change. This is, after all, the very way that formal plans for change – whether by Harry-style evolution or Tom-style revolution – emerge in the first place.
So, however well – and in whatever way - managers plan, organize, co-ordinate and control the formal side of organization [RIGHT HAND], it is the hidden, messy and informal dynamics of organizational life [LEFT HAND] that will determine what happens in practice. Leading change is a ‘contact sport’; it can’t be reduced to an arms-length management task, using formal communication programmes, Gantt charts, dashboards, scorecards, and the like.
As John Lennon put it: “Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.” And so, managers need to focus their attention here [LEFT HAND], in the rich experience of everyday organizational life, if they want to increase the likelihood that formally initiated changes will be realized in practice. This means actively engaging with these dynamic conversational networks, so that they can help to shape the way in which people make sense of events and take action - whether the broad aim is one of evolution, revolution or something else altogether!
Excellent piece that offers a most definitely non-consensus, non-herd (as in sheep) look at where and how organizational change actually happens.
Posted by: Henry D. Wolfe | 26 October 2023 at 03:14 AM
Many thanks for your comment, Henry. I’m glad that it resonates with you.
As I mention in The Wiggly World of Organization , we are all walking case studies of these dynamics in action. From our everyday experience, we know that things don’t happen in the neatly packaged and predictable ways that conventional management ‘wisdom’ suggests that they do. The challenge is in escaping from the suffocating grip of management orthodoxy and tuning-in to the complex social process of everyday human interaction, out of which whatever happens, happens.
Posted by: Chris Rodgers | 26 October 2023 at 02:02 PM