When Change is No Change at
All
By Peter Block
We are in a period
where change management and organizational transformation have become
big business. The problem is that when these ideas become mainstream and
profitable, they tend to lose integrity. Hundreds of millions of dollars
are still being spent on culture change and reengineering and
restructuring large organizations. This work is sold on the wings of
reform and improvement, but I think the opposite is true. Large change
efforts are misnamed and much more likely to reinforce the existing
culture than to rearrange it.
--Modern
efforts to change the internal operation of organizations are a reminder
of the antitrust and industrial reform movement of the early 1900's.
Teddy Roosevelt is credited with breaking up monopolies, but in fact he
was working to maintain the interests of the large, powerful
corporations and to quiet the growing pressure for social reform among
the working class. Even though - in the name of competition - big steel,
oil and railroads were divided into smaller pieces, the process actually
reinforced and legitimized the power of the industrialists. The new,
smaller organizations still dominated everything around them. The
industries had in fact supported their own cosmetic restructuring, they
had joined in the rhetoric of change, and yet the real effect was to
cause the energy for reform to evaporate without any shift in power or
real change in the conditions of work. Howard Zinn reported in his book
"A People's History of the United States," that the antitrust effort
"has apparently been carrying on its work with the purpose of securing
the confidence of well-intentioned business men, members of the great
corporations..." Zinn continues, "While the 'original impetus' for
reform came from protesters and radicals, in the current century,
particularly on the federal level, few reforms were enacted without the
tacit approval, if not the guidance, of the large corporate interests."
--Cultural
change efforts of the 1990's, including reengineering, organization
development and "self management," have some of the same qualities. They
are sponsored by top management, promise benefits to all employees and
often change very little. Some elements of cosmetic change:
-
Most change efforts are
decided by those at the very top and call for reengineering the work of
those below. I know of few executives who sign the check for a
restructuring process and then agree that the effort should begin by
reassessing whether their own job really adds value, and suggest that it
might be combined with the job of several other senior executives.
-
Many transformation
strategies call for creating a common language, establishing common
standards and measures, and providing a universal implementation process
for people at all levels. Even when the substance of the change uses the
language of empowerment, teamwork and personal spiritual development,
the belief in consistency and control from the top and center is
business as usual.
-
Advocates of greater
local control and more individual freedom begin the conversation with a
discussion of empowerment boundaries, limits of authority, matrices
which define what decisions are made by what job titles at what level.
The widespread belief that people are incapable of using their freedom
without guidance and rules is never challenged. What particularly
surprises me is that it is the trainers and organization development
consultants who argue the loudest for the need for more tools and more
definition before workers are "ready" to exercise their freedom.
-
A final expression of
patriarchy clothed in the skin of change management is the willingness
to keep investing in individual training. There is widespread evidence
that individual training does not lead to a change in organizational
behavior. The subtle message in training as a centerpiece of strategy is
that the problem with the organization lies within the mindset and
behavior of individuals. The training investment is a substitute for
looking closely at the political structure of the organization and the
willingness to genuinely place resources, purpose and control in the
hands of those doing the work. Too often the only major investment is in
the training itself and there is little energy and money left for
implementation and substantive reform.
--If
we want genuine reform, we need to question the real effect of large,
monolithic, system-wide change processes. They mostly serve the economic
interests of the professional change agents.
Executives should stop signing large consulting contracts. Genuine
transformation has to be self-inflicted to be credible. Hiring third
parties to transform second parties is really a form of manipulation.
Employees have the capacity to change their workplace if they are
encouraged to get connected to each other and if they become literate in
the problems facing the business. Common processes, common standards,
common language, common training, undermine reform by carrying the
message that the top and center know best and that change must be
controlled, driven and "drilled down" to overcome resistance and be
effective.
--Carlos
Fuentes, author and former Mexican ambassador, makes a wonderful
statement that can be applied to organizations as well as governments,
when he says, "...democratic governments know that the best way to
control a revolutionary movement is to create it. Instead of embodying
it, ... they invent and control it and thus have an enemy they count
on." Change management practices that rely on top manager sponsorship,
rely on one answer and are targeted to change the behavior of others,
are not changes at all.
This
article appeared in
News for a Change published by AQP in November 1997
|
