Re: Change management at the top LO1477

Mariann Jelinek (mxjeli@dogwood.tyler.wm.edu)
Thu, 1 Jun 1995 11:20:20 +0100

Replying to LO1451 --

[snip]
David's questions are good ones:

>The issue now is: What about the senior managers? Who helps the helpers?

Inside consultants - you! - are the obvious helper, IMHO, for just
the reasons you state.

>We're beginning to talk about training for these folks, as well as the
>idea that they need someone to talk to, just as their staff do. But I see
>a few obstacles: (1) they sometimes tend to discount those who lack
>"standing" (i.e., hierarchical status);

. So how can you use external status of your sources? Citations,
comments or reports about the "panel of experts" you're consulting to get
your info, and generating ways they can test the utility of your
recommendations en route all pop into my mind as potentially helpful.

>(2) they can be competitive
>have been rumored to form cliques (e.g., central office vs. districts);

. Competition (in some form) is a fact of life, yet perhaps the
target isn't well focused for them, and some intervention to "flaunt it,"
since you've got it, may help. For instance, seems to me they need help on
how to look for an appropriate target - the problems, instead of each
other; and on how to generate USEFUL and HELPFUL competition - competition
around finding problems and finding solutions, perhaps with hokey prizes
for most problems found, most problems solved. I read into your comments
too that team-building efforts to get them seeing themselves as a team
against the problems of their situation would be helpful. Can you do some
version of the "outward bound" stuff?

>(3) they usually listen well to outside consultants, but we're about
>broke;

You may be able to get some pro bono work from local change agent
consultants, perhaps through doctoral or MBA students studying OD
(organizational development) or change at a local university.
Alternatively, a carefully-focused, short-cycle intervention with a
consultant who will help get the ball rolling and then consult by phone
might help.

(4) they sometimes appear to take a "we know what we're doing"
>approach.
>
Well, this one's familiar! Don't we all! The traditional response
to this is to create an "unfreezing" situation - disconfirming evidence
about the task that invalidates their "we know" reaction for them, while
suggesting what sorts of change might be helpful. Keeping a good log of
what's happening, what was tried and what its outcomes were (plus and
minus, with lots of talk about both and why the outcomes were classified
that way) can help keep things on track. The key, I think, is conducting a
discussion that seeks understnading and directs attention to what the
problems really are, rather than letting folks get side-tracked into
shaming or blaming.

Some stress management would appear to be in order too, and might
be a useful segue into change management: most senior exec I've met are
"can do" types that really prefer to see results, and they experience
stress when they feel responsible but don't know what to do, regardless of
what they say.
Despite its "downsizing" bias, [Hammer, M. and J. Champy (1993)
Reengineering the Corporation. (New York, Harper Business.)] can offer
some useful suggestions for how to rethink an organization, especially if
it's read with a change-agent perspective. My MBAs got a hellova lot out
of it, and made many highly useful comments. This, too, may be
(inexpensive) grist for your mill. After all, these execs have undoubtedly
harbored annoyances and angers about what's not right with the whole
agency for years. Now's their chance to "do it right ."
Still, though, it's well to bear in mind a cartoon that Whit Knox
described:

>Until you can laugh at the Dilbert cartoon where his boss says:

"Reengineering is simple. You start by questioning the
employees who would get fired if you succeed. Then you
use that objective data to design a more efficient
business process."

>you don't understand.

Good luck, David! I'm convinced that people can do a good job of
managing change, if they can arrive at a view of their past situation as OK
for its time, but not what's needed now - "no fault" change, if you will.
The "fault finding" digressions are those that too often derail change.
Your senior execs are likely to be least endangered by reorganization, one
expects.

Sam

--
MXJELI@MAIL.WM.EDU
Mariann Jelinek 
Richard C. Kraemer Professor of Business
 Graduate School of Business, 
College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA 23185

Tel. (804) 221-2882 FAX: (804) 229-6135