Reflections on Change Strategies

As an elder, I enjoy the luxury of looking back without worrying about my future job. You might say that my career is, by and large, behind me. I have been quoted to say that "there is no future on getting old." I have been quoted accurately! Some say pessimistic, others say realistic.

I have been taught that there are different ways to learn ... by doing, by experimentation, by abstract conceptualization, and by reflective observation. They all give us slightly different takes on the target situation.

Several years ago, through an paper published by University Associates, I was exposed to a powerful piece on eight pure strategies of change. Pure, in the analytical sense, rather than in implementation. Let me summarize them here:

1. Power-Coersive. This bundle includes the following approaches to change: political, economic, military, and confrontational. Each has its strengths and limitations, each meets a specific need in time, each has its archtypes. These approaches do not describe the position or academic training of the change agent, just his/her approach.

For example, the military strategy is also used by non-military folks, the economic strategy by non-economists, the political strategy by non-politicians. Archtypes associated with this bundle are: brown-noser (political), dictator (military), colonialist (economic), rabble-rouser (confrontation).

2. Rational-Empirical. This bundle includes the following approaches: engineering, academic, fellowship, and behavioral sciences. Again, each has its strengths and limitations, each meets a specific need in time, each has its archtype. These approaches do not describe the position or acedemic training of the change agent.

For example, the engineering strategy is used by non-engineers, the academic strategy by non-academics, fellowship by non-religious persons, and the behavioral sciences by non-behavioral scientists. Archtypes associated with this bundle are: mechanic (engineering), pedantic (academic), missionary (fellowship), and shrink (behavioral sciences).

On a personal level, these strategies manifest themselves in rather comical-tragic ways:

1. The slash-and-burn style. The notion behind this approach is that the best way to go forward is to level everything in sight. Rebuilding is seen as much easier than rennovating. This Ghensis Khan approach to change has some short term benefits. It gets people's attention, but it also generates fear and lack of candor. People are criticized in public, reprimanded for small infractions, ridiculed for their foibles. The dictator is exploitative. He/she leaves behind a lot of wounded folks whose time is spent dressing their wounds and plotting revenge. Many resources are wasted by fixing what might not be broken. The legacy is one of plunder and opportunism. Change agents with this style have a short lifecycle. Few, if any, dictators die in their bed.

2. The love-in style. The notion behind this approach is that the best way to go forward is to love one another to death. Much energy is spent on being liked and included. God forbid that somesone's feelings should be hurt. The calm that this style generates is seen as progress, that things are better, that the dictator is benevolent, like a loving father/mother. Unfortunately, this style lulls people to sleep, to accept mediocrity, to promore incompetent folks, and to lower standards of performance. Change agents with this style have a medium lifecycle. Most, if not all, die in their bed.

3. The respect-me style. The notion behind this approach is that the best way forward is to earn the respect and trust from others. The energy here is on best practices, on renewal, on continuous improvement. Professionalism rules and competence is a requirement for advancement and job security. You do not have to love this person, just respect his/her intellect and ability to bring about the right change. This style does not have a need to flex its muscles, is not narcissistic, and is not full of him/herself. Change agents with this style tend to live to fight another day. They teach by examples and produce many disciples. Yes, all of them die in their bed serenely.

What's you style? What are you most comfortable with? How are others describe you?

Enjoy the journey along the learning curve!

Management & Leadership -- An Old Discussion

I recall with fondness my good friend and colleague Ray Burch's lecture on "Stop Bashing Management and Prasining Leadership". Ray, in his wisdom, attempted to bring into light the necessity of both for the long term success of our organizations.

In the past 25 years, people have fallen in love with the word "leadership." They have found it sexier that the word "management."

Many attractive adjectives have been used to describe its role and functions. Here are some adjectives usually associated with leadership: inspirational, transformative, participative, visionary, engaging, effective, contemporary, fun. Terrific words! What is there not to like?

When describing management the choice of the adjectives has been less enticing, and to a certain extent, deprecating. Here are some of the words associated with management: efficient, commanding, controlling, mechanistic, old fashioned, boring. God forbid! Who wants to be labeled "command and control?" The use of this term has been used in some organizations to derail competent people's careers.

In my professional practice, I have tried to discuss the topic in a more inclusive way, not necessarily with a lot of success. I have not given up. I continue to reflect on the subject of leadership and management,and I continue to explore its implications for contemporary organizations.

When the iconic Frank Sinatra was asked to comment on rising fame of singer Elvis Presley during the mid 1960's, he wisely said: "You cannot knock success." The word leadership has indeed captured our imagination, so it is unpopular to knock its vertues. Too many books have been written expousing its vertues, none exposing its weaknesses.

It is my view that, that in the contemporary organization, management's purpose blends sound leadership principles with the art and science of getting things done. the prrof of the pudding, I am told, is in its eating -- execution.

Leadership and management are two sides of the same coin. They are both needed for long term success. Short term success is often clouded by intervening variables such as a friendly market, superior technology, and lucky timing, to name a few. Long term success depends on navigating through a myriad of tough conditions and problematic situations.

Peter Drucker, the recognized authority on professional management, had this to say about leadership: "Leadership has little to do with leadership qualities and even less to do with charisma. It is mundane, unromantic and boring. Its essence is performance... Leadership is a means... to what end is thus the crucial question."

John Zenger and Joseph Folkman in their widely acclaimed book, The Extraordinary Leader, studied the 360 assessments of of 25,000 leaders. They isolated five important pillars to what they called "the leadership tent." The pillars are character, personal capability, interpersonal skills, focus on results and leading organizational change. Supporting the tent, they found 16 specific behavioral competencies. It is interesting to point out that, although they never used the term management, three of the five pillars included established management functions (planning, organizing, and controlling.) A fourth pillar overlaped with another activity of management, motivating others.

In another study, Joyce, Nohria and Robertson, in their book, What Really Works, identified six specific management practices for sustained business success. The primary four were: Strategy, execution, culture, and structure. The secondary two or electives were: Talent, leadership, innovation, and growth. Their five-year project analyzed more than 200 management practices, fads, silver-bullet cures and management buzz-words used by 160 companies. How stunning are their findings?

The old Bible, in Ecclesiastes, teaches us that "there is a time for everything unber the sun." It is a wise admonition. It teaches us that organizations, like humans, go through specific phases, and that each phase has unique challenges and dilemmas. What might work in a particular phase might not be sufficient for the other!

So, what have I concluded after all? I see leadership as the "maker." It will make us successful when effectively exercised. I see management as the "breaker", meaning lack of fundamental management will surely derail us.

Witness how many organizations have imploded over time. The landscape is full of carcasses of yesteryear's most admired companies. The laws of gravity, I am reminded, have not been repealed. What goes up with good leadership, will eventually come down with poor management!

Ponder this topic! Reflect on your own experience! Don't be seduced by the sexy terms -- they are ephemeral.

Enjoy your journey along the learning curve! We all have much to learn.

Musings on Organization Culture

In the mid 1970's discussion about organizational culture was a hot topic in America. I remember meeting professor Patrick Williams from one of my three alma maters -- he introduced me to the topic. Pat and I went on to become close friends and dear colleagues. Pat had done his Ph.D. in cultural norms at UCLA under the tutelage of Robert Tannenbaum -- a pioneer in the field of organization development -- and he was a new faculty member at San Jose State University.

Although the subject of culture was interesting stuff to me, it was also pretty abstract and difficult to operationalize. Some models were based on anthropology and others on sociology. Most of my clients, however, were trained in neither.

In the early 1980's after encouragement from my early clients, I undertook the difficult task to articulate the subject in more down-to-earth terms. I searched for a metaphor or analogy to help me accomplish this task.

In the English language, there are three "dog" analogies that I thought could help me. I realize that these analogies have limitations when used in other national cultures. I found later that indeed these analogies proved to hit the mark. Here is why.

As a consultant and executive, over a work span of 45 years, I came to classify my clients' corporate culture as falling into one of three descriptors. Each of the descriptors defines a particular level of psychological existence and modus operandi.

The UNDERDOG culture is the bottom level of existence. At this level, the organization is in a survival mode. Its time horizon is quite short and its most pressing preoccupation is a positive cashflow -- meeting payroll, paying its bills, etc. The underdog organization lives off the scraps that fall off the table of the more prosperous organizations. The self-image is fragile and easily punctured. Most start-ups spend significant time in this space. I am told that ninenty-five percent of start-ups fail during their first year of operation, and another ninenty percent of the surviving five percent fail the second year. Sobering findings! The aspiration of the underdog organization is to live to fight another day, and nirvana is to climb up to the next level of existence.

The TOP DOG culture is the intermediate level of existence. At this level, the organization gains a strong market presence. Its time horizon gets longer. The major emphasis is on expansion in both market share and profitability. The self image is stronger and prone to arrogance. This organization's main goal is to fight off other big dogs. A common belief is that only the paranoid survive. As success breeds success, top managers start to believe their own press. They believe that the success comes from their unique competence and not necessarily as a result of a friendly market or a superior technology.

The LUCKY DOG culture is the ultimate level of existence. Here, the organization settles down to what they do best using responsible behaviors and balanced decision making. The time horizon is long term. The needs of the stakeholders are taken more seriously as the organization strives to find its spot in its legacy quest. People are seen as true assets, and not as tools of production. Acquisitions and mergers are approached more prudently, and not for the sake of size. Mythology is used to reinforce positive role models -- from founders to current leaders. However, this level is not cast in concrete. Many events will challenge the status quo. Only the competent will survive.

In the mid 1970's as I was working on my doctoral dissertation I came in contact with the work of professor Clare W. Graves from Union College. He had published a paper entitled "Levels of Existence: An Open Systems Theory of Values" in the November 1970 issue of the Journal of Humanistic Psychology. Dr. Graves' work had a profound impact on my thinking and personal development. Coupled with the work of Abraham Maslow on the human hierarchy of needs, I gained a clearer insight into human behavior.

Maslow teaches us that the human being moves up in the hierarchy of needs as quickly and when lower level needs are satisfied. Organizations often mirror the human condition.

Underdog cultures cannot rise up to the next level until their biological, security and social needs are met. The top dog cultures will not move up until their ego needs are met. Only then can they move to the highest level -- where self-actualization is possible. When survival is threatened, the lucky dog organization collapses down to the underdog level. We have seen this phenomenon happen at Apple Computer after Steve Jobs firing. We have also witnessed this phenomenon after the installation of Carly Fiorina at Hewlett packard. We have seen this phenomenon in action at IBM in the late 1980's. I mention these three organizations because they were able to renew themselves and recoup their grandeur later.

Graves teaches us that individuals cannot rise up to the next level until their reactive, tribalistic, and ego-centric needs are met. And only after their manipulative needs are met can they move up to the next level -- socio-centric, and from there to the existential level which is the pinnacle of our search for meaning. As in the Maslow theory, individuals fall off the hierarchy as their bottom level needs are threatened. For example, underdog organizations cannot phathom the manipulative level until their survival and ego needs are met, and top dog organizations cannot become truly socio-centric and existential until their manipulative needs are met.

Tell-tales of where your organization mioght be at?

-- Personality cult -- chances are the organization is in the manipulative stage

-- Benevolent dictator -- ditto

-- Top executive layer populated by yes-men -- ditto

-- Chronic cashflow problems -- surely a sign of an underdog

-- Rampant politics -- top dog primarily, politics exist in all cultures

-- Long term view -- chances are the organization is in the lucky stage

-- Participative management style -- lucky dog?

-- Rats abandoning ship -- chances are the organization is dropping down in its hierarchy of needs.

The collapse of many top dog organization can be scandalous. CEOs and CFOs escorted to jail for manipulating the books. CEOs jailed for treating company funds as their own. CEOs, CFOs and CHROs fined millions of dollars for manipulating stock options. Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Broadcom are examples of the excesses of the top dog culture.

Reflect on these snippets, add your own. We all long to work in a lucky dog organization, few of us will have that privilege. When we do, savor it, enjoy it because it might not last.

Have fun on the learning curve!

There's More Than One Kind of Team

I remember reading an article in 1992 in the Wall street Journal by the above title by the well-known author and management expert Peter F. Drucker. He is recognized as the premier and undisputed contributor to the advancement of the science of management in the 20th century. His books and articles are classical, and the antidote to the promise of yesteryear's fads.

He wrote this article at a time when "team building" became a buzzword in American business. He commented that after much hoopla and a significant expense many American firms were disollusioned with the results. Perhaps the major reason for these poor results is the all-but-universal belief among executives and amateur-consultants that there is just one kind of team.

Drucker goes on to describe three types of teams, each different in its structure, in the behavior it demands from its members, in its strengths, its vulnerabilities, its limitations, its requirements, and above all, in what it can do and should be used for.

The first kind is best illustrated by using the analogy of the surgical team that performs an open heart operation. The team members have fixed positions they never leave. The anestesiologist never comes to the aid of the surgical nurse; the nurse does not do the operation, the surgeon does. In this kind of team, players tend to play in sequence.

The second kind is best illustrated by the analogy of the symphony orchestra. Like the hospital unit that rallies around a patient who goes into shock at 3 A.M., the symphony players have fixed positions and a sheet of music to follow. The oboe never comes to the aid of the violas, however badly they might flounder. In this kind of team, players play as a team -- in parallel.

The third kind of team is best illustrated by the analogy of the tennis-double or jazz combo. In this kind of team, players have a primary rather than a fixed position. They are supposed to "cover" for their teammates. Team players adjust to each others' strenghts and weaknesses and to the changing demands of the "game."

The first kind of team is inflexible. It works when the "game" has been played many times, and when the sequence of its actions is thoroughly understood by everyone. That is what made the mass production era so successful. In this design, every position (technical, commercial, financial, etc.) does its job its own way. Performance in this type of team is by function and by individuals. Individual accountability is easier to pin-point.

The second kind of team does have flexibility but it has far more stringent requirements. It needs a "score" or the Mozart symphony everyone in the orchestra puts on his music stand. The specifications are stringent and must be closely adhered to. There are individual stars on this team only when the score calls for a solo. The performance of the team is judged in its totality, and not by the performance of individuals players.

The requirements of the doubles team are even more stringent. The success of the "outsourcing model", for example, is highly dependent on the adherence to the strict requirements of this kind of team. The members have to be trained together and they must work together for some time before they can fully function as a team. There must be one clear goal and considerable flexibility with respect to individual member's work and performance. In this kind of team, only the team "performs"; individual members "contribute". The outsourcing partners cannot blame one another for poor performance. They are joint at the hip, so to speak.

All three kinds are true teams. But they are different in the behavior they require, in what they do best, and in what they cannot do, and there cannot be hybrids. One key team member can play one way.

It is very difficult to change from one kind of team to another.

Gradual change cannot work either. There needs to be a total breakdown from the past; however traumatic it might be. This means that people cannot report to both their old boss and to a project manager, conductor or leader. And their rewards, their compensation, their appraisal, and their promotion must be totally dependent on their performance in their new role on their new teams. Compromises will not work! Inability to align rewards with the kind of chosen team design surely will contribute to poor results. In my view, this is the biggest problem and perhaps the easiest to fix.

Teams, then, are means. As such team design has its own uses, its own characteristics, its own requirements, its own limitations.

Teamwork is neither good nor desirable. It is a non-negotiable requirement. Wherever people work together or play together they do so as a team. Which configuration to use and for what purpose are crucial, difficult, and risky decisions that are tough to unmake later. And, we have yet to learn how to make some of them.

Team building is a technique -- what OD consultants do. Team development is what the manager-leader does, day in and day out. By the way, there is more to team building than to have an off-site party, to give one another feedback, to resolve style differences. Team building includes goal setting, role clarification, norms setting, and overall performance management.

Have fun on the learning curve! Team design and development is not for amateurs.

Sacred Cows make the Best Burgers

A few years back a book by the same name as the title of this blog caught my eye. Its authors Robert Kriegel and David Brandt advanced paradigm busting strategies for developing change-ready people and organizations. Much of what they had to say vividly resonates today. Sacred cows are the outdated policies, practices, procedures and paperwork that drain the productivity and job satisfaction in today's organizations.

The chapter in the book that captivated my attention was the one discussing the rounding up of all the sacred cows. I am taking the liberty of focusing on some the cows -- I am editorializing with my own comments and/or observations:

1. The paper cow -- much of it does not add value to the customer but serves as a hurdle to productivity and job satisfaction. The major beneficiaries are the bureaucrats.

2. The meeting cow -- in the modern organization people spend as much as 60-70% of their time in meetings, most of the time is wasted. People complain about the quality of meetings conducted by others but like the way they run their meeting -- a paradox perhaps. Effective meetings need an agenda, follow up, and the right people present. Meeting facilitation is a skill. Too often people who have little or nothing to add attend meetings for status or paranoia reasons.

3. The expert cow -- it is best to think as beginners. Too much "gobblygook" language confuses everyone and does not add to the communication process. Too many pseudo experts too! Keep it simple, man!

4. The speed cow -- speed does not mean rush. Rush usually leaves many details unattended. We have learned from the past that speed can get you quality, but quality does not get you speed. If you rush and make mistakes, rework slows you down but if you do it right the first time, you can gain speed. This notion is counter-intuitive. Going slow might ensure quality but you risk being last. Speed is life in some industries.

5. The customer cow -- worshipping the customer cow by focusing on customer satisfaction alone is not where the honey is. The honey is in gaining customer loyalty. Having satisfied customers is pointless if they do not stay with you.

6. The downsizing cow -- making a company leaner and meaner by firing people eliminates much more muscle than fat. A much better strategy is to eliminate the fat in terms of all the sacred cows that graze on the company's assets. Having big parties (and calling them team building), traveling with a large retinue of hangers-on, and having too many people attend meetings or conferences are part of the fat.

7. The team cow -- you can see this cow in action when organizations throw a group of people together and tell them to act like a team. It does not work. Some tasks can be more easily or better done by individuals working alone. There is nothing worst that an incompetent team trying to tackle a complex issue. When used properly, teams can be dynamite!

8. The work-till-you-drop cow -- although we forecast an increase in leisure time, some people still worship the long hours schedule. A way perhaps to demonstrate one's machismo. Families suffer, productivity and creativity suffer, when done in excess. It is OK to go home before the boss as long as you get your job done. Living a well-balanced life has its rewards.

Work to live, not live to work, some people might say.

The anti-dote?

1. Go on a sacred cow hunt. Give prices for capturing the biggest or sacrest cows.

2. Encourage others to join the hunt.

3. Form a posse by officially deputizing a group of hunters.

4. Include customers in the hunt. They see cows that you do not.

5. Show case the captured cows to all.

Have fun on the learning curve. Any sacred cows in your organization? Any ideas about how to round them up? Be a cowboy, corral a cow or two.

Reflections on Work

I just read a news report from the reputable Conference Board in NY on Yahoo.

The headline was the decline of job satisfaction in America from a high 70% in 1970 to a low of 49% in 2009. Only 51% of the respondents found their job interesting! The degree of dissatisfaction with those under 25 years old was the highest -- 64%. A major source of dissatisfaction was the immediate supervisor (51%). But not all ills can be laid at the supervisor's feet. The article included several others issues, such as the lack of opportunities for our younger workers. As baby boomers retire, their interesting work often retires too.

These statistics are an early warning signal that American innovation, productivity, and competitiveness are at great risk.

We carry many misconceptions about work, its nature, and its role in our lives. I, for one, have been taught that work is a natural activity of man, just like play is. From early childhood I was encouraged to work. My parents gave me chores and tasks to do, Teachers gave me assignments to complete. Employers offered me jobs to perform. I received rewards for being a good worker and reprimands when I was not. I earned degrees, promotions, pay increases by working harder and smarter.

For some reason we classify work in two categories: paid and non-paid. We tend to consider paid work as real work. We consider chores, studies, pro-bono activities as less.

Example, I retired in July 2009. Colleagues and friends ask me how I like non-working or how I spend my leisure time since now I do not have anything to do. Well, I did retire in July but I did not stop working. I still work and probably will do so for years to come. For most of the work that I do, I do not receive a stipend, a paycheck, but I still do it because it is important for me to do it and because I enjoy doing it. I am remodeling my current home. I am volunteering on several church projects. I am helping my wife and daughter with their projects. I provide advice to four firms. I am busier now than I was before I retired. I pay my bills from income I generate from my investments and from pension plans I participated in.

Most people see retirement as an ending. This is fallacious and misleading. Retirement is a new beginning! You can design and a different way of living, of allocating your time and resources. If you have provided adequately from a financial point of view, you are now able to pursue your hobbies, to be of service to others, to enjoy your family. I do not have to do things that I do not want to do, go places that I do not want to see, and be with folks with whom I do not enjoy being. Retirement is a time of liberation, as Dr. Deepak Chopra suggests "awaken from the hypnosis of social conditioning."

Back to the work topic. Happiness is doing what you love and loving what you do. This is the sweet spot everybody talks about. All work is noble! It does not matter whether it is manual or intellectual, spiritual or physical. As a society we all need to do our part, whatever it might be.

In earlier times, work was closely associated with toil, sweat of the brow, with physical fatigue. Some religions may even see work as punishment from God for the original sin. People were born into poverty and died in it. People were born in a class and they were prisoners of it. The word labor (Latin for work) connotes physical and debilitating effort. We have ministries of labor rather than ministries of work. A rather curious footnote! But in are in the 21st century, surely we have more possibilities.

We promote many human rights such education, health care, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. I would like to add the opportunity to work, to have a job, as a human right. it might not be the job we want, but it can still be a challenging and rewarding one. Work enhances our self worth, it can provide a way to escape from poverty, to overcome class, to minimize race or ethnic or origin barriers.

In the 1970's there was a movement in the US to enrich or enlarge work. Like the many fads that have traveled through our work place, we have forgotten that one of the fundamental jobs of management is to improve the quality of our work lives. This responsibility extends to providing better job designs, greater opportunities for learning, and more ways to become valuable.

Sure, there might be a few jobs that cannot be enriched or enlarged, but most jobs are amenable to more responsibility or more variety. We can design jobs that fit people's needs rather than just fitting people to technical needs.

I challenge us to get back to the basics of good management and not be seduced by the allures of the magic bullets or gimmicks. There is no one best way, but some ways are surely more effective than others, more humane, more appropriate. The next generations' depend on our response.

Your views?

Change Evaluation

It is mind boggling to hear the rationale used by change managers, internal or external, about this topic. Experience shows that the great majority of change efforts fail -- only a few succeed.

Many feel that change programs cannot be truly evaluated because there are too many variables to contend with, that we do not have the luxury or opportunity to set up control groups, etc. Others, to justify their lack of success, will tell you that things would have been much worse without their intervention. Still others will insinuate that not enough time has passed to truly evaluate a change initiative, that we must wait. To me these and other excuses prevent us from advancing the state of our knowledge about organizational diagnosis and intervention.

It has been said that success has many fathers, and failures none. It is easy to appropriate credit when things go well (even though we might not have had much to do with it), but very difficult to be accountable should the results be less than we anticipated.

I have been around long enough to realize that success is highly dependent on favorable market conditions. Market pull makes geniuses of all of us. We come to believe our own PR. The truth of the matter is that the best is required from us when the markets get tough and the likelihood of success much more problematic. I have seen the rise and fall of many giant companies -- only a few have risen from the ashes.

Experience has shown that failures result from three sources: (1) we used the wrong methods, (2) we used the correct methods but improperly, or (3) both. Evaluation is essential to our learning. The feedback we gain helps us adjust our thinking and improve our skill set. Without an explicit change strategy, change managers take the ultimate risk of "flying blind." When you fly blind, you take the chance of running into unexpected consequences, of doing harm to yourself and others, and more hurtfully to be labeled a charlatan.

In my view, it is not a sin to admit that something did not work. As human beings we are not infallible, we do not know all there is to know, and we are prone to make incorrect assumptions. By admitting our humanity, we stand a better chance of becoming masters in our chosen profession. It has been said that most people learn more from their mistakes than they do from their successes. "You can fool some of the people sometime, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." Our clients are intelligent human beings, they are not easily convinced by our contrite rationale.

At a recent meeting I attended in Oxford, one of the well respected participants asked me why had a particular culture change program (now in its 6th year) failed to make the changes stick. I have been reflecting on his question since.

There are two general ways to evaluate change programs, I was taught a few years back -- maybe there are more now but I am not aware of any. One is called the summative approach and the other the formative. In the former case, you compare longitudinally a number of metrics. The metrics are selected prior to the launch of the effort. Success can be established by comparing the gap between "what was" with "what is now". This approach has also been called the "goal attainment method."

Any unfinished business can be incorporated in future changes. This is the simplest form of evaluation but not necessarily the most instructive.

In the case of formative evaluation, you evaluate progress along the way, at critical phases and milestones, and at the end. This approach is much more demanding but can yield important "lessons learnt" in both end results accomplishment as well as to the efficacy of the change methods used.

I strongly urge practitioners to build into the change plan an evaluation component. The type and epth depends on the complexity of the change program. You do not need to use a 10 pounds sledge hammer to drive down a penny nail. All in moderation! I urge a vigorous debate about change efficacy.

In later blogs, I will discuss three specific change evaluation methods, ranging from the easy to the more complex. Choosing the appropriate method is important from a cost point of view. A simple change might not warrant large expenditures for evaluation, and vice versa.

Enjoy the journey along the learning curve.