Why change?

Shawn Callahan has a post on Defining intent in a change management program in which he talks about the importance of leadership defining senses of direction, discovery and destiny for change programs.

A while ago I argued that the target metaphor was inappropriate for change projects. The idea that anyone could accurately define a change target, aim at it, and then hit it with a well shot arrow was, at best, an illusion. In most cases the possible, beneficial end states are wide and varied.

So the question is, how do you define an intent that provides direction, inspires action yet is not overly prescriptive? John F. Kennedy provides a good example.

I have a counter-thought to this. Why is there a change program at all? Isn't there a strategic directive or other effort in play that created the need for the change program? What if the strategic objective were achievable by a means other than this particular change program?

I say this, not because I disagree with Shawn's comments, but because these programs are not created strictly for the sake of change. Whenever possible, isn't it more sensible to create a system in which the sought-for change happens as a side-effect of the new way of doing business. I'm not as excited when the tactic is about change as I am when the tactic is about doing business such that our strategy works.

4 Comment(s)

Shawn Callahan said:

[duplicate comment deleted]

January 30, 2007 3:18 AM

Shawn Callahan said:

You make a good point Jack. I should have said that the strategic intent provides direction for the change.

I was wondering whether you have any ideas on how one helps a group of people articulate their intent? I will blog this idea later but I think you need to take an organisation through three journeys: 1) the development of the strategic intent by a leadership group (might be people throught an organisation not just the most senior people); 2) the involvement of the staff in developing the mud map based on experiences (stories); and 3) actually going on the change journey in the full knowledge that it wont look like they way it was planned.

January 30, 2007 3:19 AM

jackvinson

said:

Thanks, Shawn.

On first glance, I suspect the articulation of strategic intent is a chicken-and-egg thing. The group needs to know what the higher-level strategy is (make money now and in the future; increase shareholder value; increase profits; increase production at the production facility; etc) to know how to make sense of their own strategies.

In my work with clients, it is also quite helpful to see what is "good enough" to get people moving in the right direction. Specifically, along with the strategic plans they need to uncover and consider the negative ramifications and obstacles of the approach. This is where the stories and their built-in sense about how the organization works are very helpful. It is hard to uncover the specifics issues without getting the longer descriptions and stories about why things have worked (or not) in the past. Once you have those, then there is a clearer path to building a pathway.

I may be getting too deep into the tactics here, while you want to stay up at the strategic level.

January 30, 2007 10:25 AM

Shawn Callahan said:

Tactics are good Jack. I think one of the tactics is to help people describe what's outside the intent or out of scope. Defining an intent by what it is not is helpful. This helps you discern when you are heading in the wrong direction. Thanks again for helping me clarify my thoughts.

January 30, 2007 3:11 PM