The Nature of Transformation

The patterns of change are universal. Organizational transformations always include physical, political, and emotional changes. The process, the actions of people at work and the work of the organization, itself, are altered in significant ways.

Physical objects are moved and replaced. New tools and technologies are introduced. Unusual equipment is installed. Obsolete equipment is retired. Workspaces are renovated to support new ways of doing business. People are moved about.

Political power and alliances shift. Operating departments and divisions are reformed. Support organizations adapt themselves to meet new demands. Responsibilities are reassigned. New links between people form and old ones become obsolete. The intangible structures of the organization change as well. As processes and procedures are revised, the importance of certain skills, knowledge, and experience changes. Jobs are redefined; some increase in value, some decline, others are abolished.

People react with a variety of strong emotions rarely seen in a stable operation. As many comfortable routines and relationships are replaced, people lose their balance. They fight to regain their footing. Fear, anger, sadness, and the excitement of risk bubble up. Human factors take on new importance. Different kinds of support and motivation are required.

Transformation leaves a distinctive footprint. The same patterns recur anytime an organization successfully transforms itself, no matter what the goal.

Outside forces bring new pressures to bear. A new vision for the organization's future is created. New priorities are set forth. Plans are made and people are recruited to bring the change about. Teams and projects are formed to advance the change. Essential new systems and behaviors are introduced to replace obsolete old ones. Existing systems fail to support new processes, and breakdowns follow. People first resist and then begin adapting themselves. New possibilities emerge. The vision is revised and improved. The change stalls and some leaders are replaced.

A breakthrough occurs as the energy invested in the change builds to a force strong enough that it can overcome the organization's inertia. The change bolts forth, taking on a life of its own. Optimism abounds. Then, all hell breaks loose. The change moves faster and faster creating lots of surprises. People are confused and disoriented. Everything feels out of control.

At some point, acceleration of the change slows and then declines. Each day there is less change as systems and people begin to mesh effectively. In the end, people are applying new skills to accomplish different kinds of work. And, remarkably, everyone begins to forget how much everything has changed. Stability is restored.

None of this is random. There is a logic in the chaos of major change. By understanding the patterns of change and also the reasons they occur as they do, you can smooth the transformation for yourself and for your organization. This is the practice of ChangeCraft™.

Some changes last and some go away. Some people see the unfolding of events as coming full circle or swinging back and forth like a pendulum. Changes that come and go, then come again, are temporary. We survive these cyclical changes with temporary, superficial adaptations. It makes no sense to transform an organization's structure and processes only to adapt to temporary or cyclical changes in a world that will soon revert to the old ways.

Most companies -- and most jobs -- are in a constant state of evolution: introducing new technologies, new systems and new products. These incremental changes come in small, manageable steps: word processors replace typewriters, calculators replace mechanical adding machines, computer skills become important in all kinds of work. We're accustomed to making small, permanent adaptations to accommodate incremental changes. When small adaptations will suffice, there is no need to radically transform large systems.

Major transformations outside require dramatic adaptation inside. Some changes are not incremental. Rapid, large-scale changes in the world force organizations to make equally dramatic adaptations just to preserve status quo. If an organization is to make an abrupt, radical change in its structure or systems, the people of that company must change the ways they work, the ways they relate to each other, and the ways they think about their work.

There are three different types of change. Cyclical change comes and goes; we make temporary adaptations to meet its demands. Incremental changes (like growth and evolution) cause us to make small, permanent adaptations to stay current. Transformation is radical - large-scale and rapid - adaptation to react to huge changes in the outside world. ChangeCraft™ works with transformational change in your organization, as well as dealing with the major adaptations that people must make in the process.

Change comes from the outside. American culture places great value on leaders. We expect leaders to cause results in organizations. When the results are good, we credit the leaders; when they are bad, we blame them. While leaders are a vital part of organizations, they are only a part. Exaggerating the importance of leaders creates a sense of diminished responsibility and relative powerlessness in others who help create organizational success. Organizations are systems. Each part of a system must function if it is to succeed. Each part influences and affects every other part: followers influence leaders just as much as leaders influence followers. This is easy to see in a major change where individuals must make their own choices before the company can transform. Transformations that work are built on foundations outside the company; on changes that have already occurred with customers, suppliers, and competitors. Most successful changes have been predicted -- even requested -- by people at the bottom of organizations well before people at the top endorse them.

Organizations are systems within systems. Over-emphasis on leaders causes us to believe that successful changes are the result of a leader's good -- even creative, original -- ideas. For example, the world press made Mikhail Gorbachev a hero for his change leadership. He was given credit for introducing openness (glastnost) into the Soviet Union and for causing the restructuring (perestroika) of Soviet culture. Neither perestroika nor glastnost were Gorbachev's ideas; the restructuring was underway (if stalled) when he took office and the concept of glastnost had been around for over a hundred years. When Gorbachev was forced from office before completing the changes he was credited with beginning, most commentators declared him a failure. These people didn't understand the nature of leadership in a change. Perhaps they didn't understand the change process at all. Gorbachev was a powerfully effective leader of change in his country: so effective that the change he led outgrew him. His experience is so typical of leaders in large-scale change that it was predictable. He was not a failure as a change leader even though he was not allowed to finish the project. Nor did Gorbachev cause the success of the ongoing change in his society. The Russian change succeeded because it fit into -- and was supported by -- changes in the world outside that country. Surely Gorbachev's role was important -- even vital -- but he was never more than a part of the change process. The systems that surrounded the Soviet Union had changed so much that Gorbachev's country had to transform itself to remain connected to the outside world. When the change outgrew Gorbachev, it continued without him.

Companies -- and other organizations -- are a mixture of procedures and people combined into a predictable routine. Two companies, competing to produce the same kind of products for the same kinds of customers are created with different mixes of people and procedures. Each company has its own special values and capabilities. These differences create unique cultures in organizations. Perhaps your company has produced the same kind of product employing the same kinds of people using the same kinds of procedures for many years. Perhaps your company has evolved to keep up with the rapid pace of change in the world, but still looks and acts much like it always has. Perhaps your company has actually changed the character and essence of the businesses to maintain its fit as the world has dramatically changed.

When a company's values and capabilities change, the organization is forever different. Such a transformation disrupts the comfort and security of routine in jobs. Extraordinary demands for change are made on the people of the company. Often new people with new skills are brought in to speed up the change or to replace those who cannot adapt quickly enough.

People must change to make change last. To transform itself, a company must call on employees to change themselves and the ways they work. Many believe that it's hard for people to change. Some believe that people really don't change. People do change. It is our nature to change. Our adult lives are a history of unique, personal change. We make changes that are more dramatic than growth or evolution. We change on purpose. We change our skills. We change our surroundings and the places that we live. Most of us change jobs. Some of us change spouses. We even change our beliefs and rearrange our values.

Organizations in need of transformation demand that people change because people change easier than organizations. Companies are transformed only after they achieve a Critical Mass of permanent change in the ways that people do their work. Critical Mass is the point at which changing back to the old ways would be more difficult than going forward with the new. If the people of an organization can and will adapt, the organization changes. If the people don't change, the organization doesn't change. Period.

Leaders lose their answers in new territory. When an organization transforms itself, everyone in that organization must adapt. This means we must trade in some old habits for unfamiliar new beliefs and behaviors. Personal change is always uncomfortable, sometimes even painful.

When organizations change, leaders must adapt their own styles and behaviors to lead the new company. In fact, many corporate change projects crash and burn just about the time it becomes clear that the leaders must change themselves. Those who succeed in this personal adaptation end up working with new skills and orientations in a company that's better fit to serve its customers and better matched to new external realities.

Organizational transformation threatens corporate executives and managers by rendering their automatic answers obsolete. Managers spend much of their time solving problems, answering questions, and checking the work of their subordinates. This activity is a source of both power and comfort because the traditions require managers to have a deep understanding of the work they supervise. Managerial judgment is rarely more than the application of experience to today's challenges. Most managers can go on automatic pilot to perform their answering, solving, and checking work. When an organization heads off into new territory -- particularly when jobs, skills, and work change -- managers' good old answers are not good enough. Those who have depended on this kind of expertise for their power tend to become disoriented in the midst of a transformation.

Old maps don't work, compasses do. If we are truly exploring new terrain in an organizational change, maps of the old territory are of little use. When you move to a new city, much of what you learned about traffic patterns and shortcuts in your old town becomes obsolete. To effectively lead an exploration, you must depend on your sense of direction rather than on your knowledge of the trail. Since most companies have engaged far more in highway improvement than in trail blazing, managers and executives may have to develop little-used skills and talents. For example, it is common for executives to authorize a major change only in return for firm budgets and specific timetables. A big, international consulting firm comforts executive clients whose companies must transform with the slogan: "On time, under budget." Don't believe it. You can accurately make predictions like this only if you know the territory well. Demanding certainty is a good way to tear the heart out of a transformation project. Major changes that work are driven only by the certainty that the company must find a better way of doing business. They depend far more on vision and faith than on tight managerial controls. In the end, much of that better way has been invented by the travelers during the journey: people who have taken advantage of unpredicted opportunities and solved unforeseen problems. Leaders of an exploration do more listening and less directing; they attend more to current realities and less to plans and budgets crafted back in comfortable conference rooms. If you're seeking a leader to take your group through the "wilderness," follow one who really understands the direction you're headed and who has a good compass.

Stage One: Awakening

Outside pressures make it clear that the company must change. Investments are made in research and learning to establish a new direction. A vision for the future is clarified by top leaders. The vision is communicated to the company: some people are elated, some afraid, but most say they'll believe it when they see it. More investments are made to get the change started.

There are few results beyond talk. The organization maintains its equilibrium and holds its shape. More energy is invested. Resistance grows in equal proportion.

The organization shows signs of movement, but only in response to bigger investments of energy. When the heat is turned down, the change cools. People begin calling these attempts: Flavor of the Month.

Some early advocates get discouraged and stop pushing for change. Some newcomers quit in frustration. Senior leaders question what's going wrong. Outside pressures persist.  

Stage Two: Transforming

After months or years of investment in the change, the organization's capacity to resist is diminished and then exhausted. When resistance collapses, much of the energy that's been invested goes into motion, creating an explosion of change. At Critical Mass, the transformation rockets forward on its own. But, it all seems out of control. Too many things are happening at once.

People are scared. Strange problems and opportunities pop up faster than they can be handled. There's a cry for stronger leadership. Even when investments of energy are withdrawn, the change continues to accelerate.

New systems break down and must be redesigned. As if to save their lives, some old systems perform better than they ever did in the past. Executives are alarmed and demand control. People break down. Some of them don't make it.  

Stage Three: Integrating

Finally, the organization depletes its capacity to change. A point of Natural Limits is reached. Acceleration stops. The transformation begins to slow.

The organization has responded to outside pressures. New systems are working in parallel with the old ones they are to replace. People have learned new skills, but must discipline themselves to use them. None of this feels natural or comfortable. The old and the new are not connected.

Hidden reinforcers of the old way of doing business become visible; they are adapted or removed. New processes prove themselves. Old ones, running in parallel, are shut down and retired. Changes are integrated with old systems and values that remain in place.

Confidence increases. New skills become automatic. People begin forgetting that they've changed. Stability is restored.

© 1993, 1998 ChangeCraft™
Written by Doug Wesley and Kaye Whitefeather
(Heidi Jeanne Hess contributed.)

When you are finished
Please Click the arrow to return to Primer.