Change, change, change everywhere

I have not posted a blog in several months. Too busy with travel, too distracted by the chaotic world in which we live. I have been watching with wonder the historic events of the past several months, I confess to having been engrossed in them, searching for meaning, and hoping for the best.

The amount and degree of change world-wide has been and continues to dominate the news, with the hope for a better future. I am specifically keen on commenting on the strategies of change in play and the theory behind them. I recall being exposed to these theories in the early 1970's. An interesting article by the well-known publisher University Associates was a great help in explaining the different kinds of strategies and their strengths and weaknesses. Let me see if I can elaborate.

The theory teaches us that there are basically three major types. Each has been named for a group that typically, but not exclusively, might use it. Each strategy follows a set of assumptions behind the decision to use it, the needs the strategy meets for its users, and of course, its strengths and weaknesses.

Let's start with the first group. This group includes strategies that are best classified as based in power and force. The strategies that fall into this group are: the Political, the Economic, the Military, and the Confrontation change strategies.

POLITICAL STRATEGY -- assumes that if you find and understand the power structure of those who are perceived to have influence over decision making, then the desired action will be achieved. The need here is for control and attention. The strength is that it is effective at getting decisions implemented. The problem is that people relying on this strategy find it difficult to maintain credibility if they experience a failure, and subject themselves to backlash from others with opposing views.

ECONOMIC STRATEGY -- assumes that change can be accomplished by acquiring or obtaining control over all forms of materials goods. An important ingredient is to include those who possess control of the resources. The strength is that as long as the resources are available the strategy is effective in getting decisions implemented. The problem, on the other hand is, that resources are not unlimited.

MILITARY STRATEGY -- assumes that change in behavior can be effected through the use of physical force. A critical component is the development of conditioning, agility, and knowledge of use of methods to enforce change. The strength is effective at keeping order. The weakness comes from the fact that coercion must be costantly maintained because relaxing of control will result in the change not being sustained. Also force tends to be met with force.

CONFRONTATION STRATEGY -- assumes that the use of nonviolent argument will force people to look at problems resulting in the desired change being made. To succeed, people must be able to deal with and use conflict. This strategy helps people release tension, vent anger, or argue for moral values. The strategy is good at getting people to look at issues they would rather avoid. The problem, on the other hand, is that it offers no solution, that those who use it typically lack the power, and also that the strategy creates a backlash.

The second group can be classified as rational-empirical. This approach to change assumes that people are guided by reason and will use rational problem-solving processes, including observation and collection of data, in determining change strategies.

ENGINEERING STRATEGY -- assumes that by changing the context e.g., physical layout, regulated or permitted interaction patterns and role descriptions that change will result in achieving the desired changes. This approach relies on technical skills and structural intervention. The strength is that top managers who have power to influence system-wide changes in structure can be effective on implementing changes. The problem is that people are not just tools and interchangeable resources. This approach can create major resistance to change and therefore decrease the probability of success.

The final group can be classified as normative-reeducative. The strategies used are based on the rationale that, by nature, people exhibit goal-seeking behavior. It also assumes that learning takes place as a result of the interaction process that occurs as people attempt to reach their goals while confronting the demands and resources of the environment.

ACADEMIC STRATEGY -- assumes that since people are rational, if you present them with facts, then people will make the necessary changes. People will listen to those who have knowledge about things of concern to them. This strategy meets the need that people have for autonomy. The strength is that it produces information that is made available to those considering change. It is good at pointing out problems. The problem is that since people are not involved in the process of developing a strategy, there is a lack of ownership of the findings from such studies. As a result, this strategy is weak at mobilizing support and it is time consuming.

FELLOWSHIP STRATEGY -- assumes that getting people to know and like one another will facilitate mutual influence and change, Participation in decision making is thus crucial. People have a need to belong, and this strategy meets that need. The strength rests on its commitment to the individual and giving dignity to the individual. It can get things started. However, conflict avoidance and inability to reach decisions contribute to a loss of direction. Lack of direction in turn can lead to less commitment.

BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE STRATEGY -- assumes that problems in today's world are so complex that they require a combination of or multiple approaches to solve them. Involvement can lead to increased commitment to and acceptance of the results. Here we see a need to integrate the emotional and rational parts of man. The strength is that it puts responsibility where knowledge resides. The problem, on the other hand, due to situational orientation and its eclectic nature, makes it difficult to explain and to understand the change.

It is important to note that no one strategy is better than another, Each strategy is based on different assumptions, and each has different strengths and weaknesses. These strategies are rarely used in their pure form. Often they are used in combination in accordance with the situation on hand.

So much for theory ... Now let's go to practice. Take a look at the major changes around us today. Can you link the type of strategy, its strengths and weaknesses? I think I can, and so can you. Let's quickly see the general application:

SYRIA -- change strategy: military crackdown (force) met by rebellion and casualties on both sides.

ITALY -- change strategy: economic and political met by confrontation (strikes, occupation, disobedience). Prime minister an ex-banker. Other ministers technocrats.

EGYPT -- change strategy: confrontation met by police repression, military intervention, finally elections

LYBIA -- change strategy: military crackdown (force) met by rebellion with casualties on both sides, sanctions (economic), transition

AFGHANISTAN -- change strategy: military (force) met by guerilla warfare, terrorism, disengagement to come

USA -- change strategy: political-economic met by sit-ins, occupations, stand-offs

GREECE -- change strategy: economic and political met by mass protests, urban warfare, destruction of property, change in cabinet of government. Prime minister an ex banker. Other ministers technocrats.

I can go on and so can you. Notice that neither of the prime ministers in Italy and Greece were elected by the people. What happened to representative government? Change in both countries was imposed by outsiders, bankers, bureaucrats in Brussels, other countries (Germany and France).

Fascinating subject. A great laboratory for understanding change and change processes. Enjoy the journey.

Leadership and Self-Deception

A book by this title caught my eye ten years ago. The publisher is the Arbinger Institute. It came along with a powerful video detailing a case study from medical archives where established and well known medical practitioners had problems accepting the findings of a junior member. Why? They were stuck in their thinking, trapped inside the box, so to speak. The trap would not let in fresh data and breakthrough findings.

We have seen similar situations elsewhere, during our careers. Self-deception comes in many shades and forms. I am sure that the reader will recall from his own observations many such examples. Here are three that I would like to share:

1. A successul organization, led by a charismatic leader, runs into major profitability obstacles in its operations. The leader, surrounded by his most loyal and trusted underlings, began to explore solutions. One of the key people suggested an approach. Because of the team dynamics, little discussion followed as to the merits or limitations of the suggested remedies. Unquestioned, the solutions became the panacea for solving the profitability issues. When someone ventured contrasting ideas or doubts, he was soundly ridiculed and/or seen as a non-team player. The problem with the solution was that it did not fit all situations and that those responsible for implementing it did not know how. The solution proved unworkable and simplistic. The issues were much larger than anticipated. Yet to this day, the players recall this case as a tremendous success. Self-deception? Indeed!

2. Years ago, I was facilitating a team building session for an executive team composed of 13 members in a remote part of Minnesota, in a resort located near a beautiful lake. The session was engaging and quite interesting. The issue was poor revenue results. Of the 13 players, one was a quite participant, the rest very outspoken and loud. The quite member seemed more intent on listening than talking. He was in charge of product development. His colleagues were critical of the products coming from the development group and they were sure that poorly designed products were the culprits. After listening for two days to finger pointing and shouting, I felt that I was losing control of the group as a facilitator. In desperation, I turned to the quite member of the group and asked him for his view of the problem. In a quite voice, he responded as follows: Hey guys, it looks like the products you are asking me to develop are not the products that customers want. Wow! The rest is history! The finding was way too late to save them.

3. One of my friends and an esteemed consultant had been engaged in a 5-year culture change program in a high tech company. The CEO was keen on imbedding a set of values and culture characteristics that, in his view, would advance the strategy of the company. It was customary to review progress along this journey and congratulate one another about the tremendous progress made in the culture change journey. The CEO was the champion and advocate, and he was a formidable spokesperson. His exuberance created a reality that senior members felt obliged to accept, although quite remote from the facts on the ground. The consultant, my friend, got trapped in defending his approach and the client's views. People who were not supportive were labeled as misfits, old fashioned, command and control types who missed the significance of the intervention. Soon the specter of the "culture police" permeated the organization. Discussion soon was stifled, people began to go through the motions without conviction. The CEO and the consultant, to this day, defend the intervention as very successful. In my view, they are self-deceiving. One proof: once the CEO left the organization, the culture project was terminated and the consultant fired.

I am sure that you can add to the list many examples from your own experience.

The message here is that we all must be vigilant. It is easy to go along so as not to appear contrary. It is easy to construct a reality that we are all comfortable with. It is easy to go places where nobody wants to go in the first place in the name of teamwork. It is easy to not rock the boat and just ride along -- often toward more turbulent waters. It is easy to stick to what we know because what we do not know scares us. It is easy to live in the past or in our imagination because reality might scare us.

There is a great need to dialog inside organizations, free from perceived or imaginary reprisals. Dialog expand our data points and hopefully lead us toward a better, perhaps more informed decision making.

Enjoy the journey along the learning curve! Avoid self-deception -- a big obstacle to a profitable ride.

Brilliance by Design

Last week I had the pleasure of attending the Annual Summit event sponsored by the Ken Blanchard Companies -- purveyors of world class leadership development programs. This conference showcases client companies' application of the Situational Leadership methodology. The venue was the La Costa Resort in Carlsbad, California -- a beautiful Spanish colonial set of buildings nestled in the wooded section of this lovely California town -- approximately 15-20 miles North of San Diego.

During the conference I attended a short workshop led by Vicki Halsey, author of the book "Brilliance by Design". This book is an "how to" book -- on how to create learning experiences that connect, inspire, and engage participants. A must-have skill set for leaders and consultants.

Adult learning is an interesting discipline and one that captured my attention many years ago. In fact, I toyed with the idea of attending the Ph.D. program at Columbia University in the early '80's. Unfortunately, my work schedule did not permit me to do so, but I have never lost the passion for the subject.

Workshop design, in particular, is an important skill for organization development practitioners. Much of what they do involves the use of workshops for data collection, analysis and problem solving. I have attended one too many workshops that were poorly designed and ineffective. Some, I might have been personally responsible for. Not proud of that, though! I have struggled over the years to design workshops that connect, inspire and engage clients. But without solid training, I foundered along.

We were given a complimentary copy of the book. I am reading it as we speak, and I have already found much to learn and apply. I recommend it. It easily written and it is chuck full of examples, tables, questionnaires, and hints. It is published by Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, California. It costs a mere $ 18.95.

Tsunami and Change

I have been transfixed by the television images coming from Japan. After an enormous earthquake, the strongest in the recorded history of Japan, a huge tsunami wave washes away to sea buildings, cars, trees, and people. At last count 8,000 people are dead and another 12,000 are missing. The nuclear reactors near the epicenter did not withstand the tremblor. The cooling chambers were ruptured leaking the protective water surrounding the nuclear cores. Radioactive vapor continues to escape in the atmosphere; concern is high that explosions may occur if attempts to cool down the reactors prove unsuccessful.

The Japanese word tsunami means, I am told, catastrophe. There is no better way to describe the desolation, devastation, and human suffering resulting from this mammoth event. Hopelessness, despair, powerlessness, and broken dreams! All in a short in a matter of minutes.

In a remote small town of Tunisia, a lonely and desperate man immolates himself after an arbitrary confiscation of his vegetable cart. This sets off a spontaneous chain of human tsunamies across the Maghreb and to the Middle East. A subsequent insurresction topples the long standing dictator of Tunisia. Soon after the tsunami spreads to Egypt where valiant freedom fighters stand down Mubarak, their strong man of 30 years. Ripples from the change wave reach Jordan where the King swiftly moves to right some injustices. Turmoil soon after erupts in Bahrain and Yemen. Skirmishes are also reported in the Eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia. Unrest in Lybia quickly follows in the eastern province, and spreading quickly West to other cities.

Most, if not all, of these hot spots are still smoldering, with an uncertain conclusion. One cannot stand by and watch helplessly as these events unfold in front of our eyes. Something powerful and beyond explanation is happening. The human spirit, it seems, is alive and well, yearning to be free, eager to pursue happiness.

It has been reported that there are 100 million people in migration in the world today. Men and women who have left their homes in search of work. A human wave stretching across the globe. A wave larger than most countries' population. About 12 million are currently stranded in North Africa looking for ways to cross the Mediterranean Sea to Europe in search of a better life.

Victor Pinero, a colleague that I met years back in Venezuela and later again in California, wrote a book about a tsunami type of change he saw happen in his native island of Curacao. His book went by unnoticed. He re-issued his updated book following the tsunami disaster in South East Asia a few years ago. Victor tried to bring to light the consequences of large scale change inside our organizations. Again, his book went mostly unnoticed.

During my long career, I have seen several organizational tsunami. They are all different, of course, but they also have something in common: a catastrophic event that shakes the organization off its foundations. Some organizations survive, but they are for ever changed. The catastrophic event might be the firing of a charismatic leader, the loss of a major source of revenue, the quick advent of a replacement technology, or an ill-conceived merger. As a result, careers are swept away, prospects destroyed, fortunes lost, and dreams shattered. Human suffering follows for years to come. The wounds might heal but the scars will remain.

I am reminded that we live in a world of uncertainty, a world full of unknowns, a world with hidden tsunamis -- some manageable, others beyond our scope. Although we long for predicability and safety, we are destined to live on shaky ground.

Hemingway said that "life breaks you but makes you stronger in the broken parts". As I reflect on these events, I pray that this is the case for our brothers and sisters in Japan. I pray that this is also the case for our brothers across the Maghreb and the Middle East.

Job Design -- A Lost Science?

In my last blog regarding employee engagement, I introduced the notion that an important (but not the only one) factor to consider is effective job design. One of my blog followers wrote to ask that I say a bit more about this topic.

Job design know-how is an important part of the HR professional toolkit. Without it, it is difficult to understand, let alone to do, organization design. Sadly, most HR professionals do not have the working knowledge and expertise required to carry out these two critical functional assignments -- the hard side of HR. I do not recall seeing either course in most HR curricula that I have perused in the past 10 years. What seems to be in vogue nowdays is the softer side of HR.

My view has been for sometime that it is sheer folly to rely on just one side of the HR equation (hard or soft). Effective HR management work requires knowledge and experience in both sides. The lack of the hard side will break us while the emphasis on the soft side will make us more successful. Two sides of the same coin. One is not better than the other, they are both essential.

Back to job design. Its roots go back to the industrial revolution and the industrial engineers who pionered it. It all started with job analysis -- the study of the time and motions needed to complete an industrial task. The engineers' orientation was to find ways to fit unskilled people to the requirements of emerging mass production. Right just before and after the WWII, industrial psychologists got involved in a series of experiments designed to humanize the workplace. Assembly line work, while generating the desired efficiencies, took a huge toll on people's motivation, organizational attachment, and job satisfaction. These experiments gave rise to a new approach that tried to balance the technical needs of a job with the human side of the provider, more elegantly named the socio-technical approach.

Taking the mystique away, job design is a decision making process that tries to balance, on one side, the job designer's CHOICES in work design with, on the other side, CONSIDERATIONS for people. What are the choices? They are the tasks, activities, functions included in a person's job vis-a-vis the aspirations, skill set, and orientation (considerations). The designer can based on this analysis enrich a job by increasting its variety or enlarge a job based on individual needs and capabilities. This approach has taken hold in the more recent times whenever technology permits it. It is quite difficult to customize jobs in mass production or automated functions, but rather feasible in service or high tech industries for example.

Now, let me dispel some faulty assumptions. Job descriptions are not to be confused with job design. They are an expression of how management sees a particular job. The same can be said for position descriptions or role descriptions. Their uses are also different. Job descriptions are useful for salary survey work, by enabling us to calculate job worth in monetary terms. Role descriptions are useful for clarifying responsibilities, accountabilities, and authority. Position descriptions are functional descriptions of specific jobs in a job family. Job analysis tries to map out how people spend their time, how important what people do might be in the scheme of things, and the relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities required to perform them. It is a great tool for activity pricing and for eliminating wasteful efforts. Job analysis is also essential to solid needs assessment.

Increased employee engagement depends on the fit between the person and the job. Experts in employee engagement warn us that engagement is not the same thing as satisfaction, and I agree. But I posit that job satisfaction is a pre-condition. We all know that happy cows do not yield more or better milk. But we know, on the other hand, that unhappy cows will gore you, run away (turnover), or quit cooperating.

Research on employee retention suggests that people stay because they like the work they do and the context in which they do it (company, industry, location, etc.) Employees leave, on the other hand, principally because they have better opportunities, do not like their supervisor, find company policies wnating, or are dissatisfied with the work climate or work location. Two totally different sets of reasons!

In todays's world employees expect involvement and participation in those decisions that affect their job or livelihood. Management on the other hand expects compliance and flexibility. I believe that this is a fair exchange. Don't you?

A big subject to address in a short blog. I hope that I have contributed to the discussion.

Employee Engagement

Last month I visited Brazil for the second time the past year. I met with four different consulting firms on behalf of a company on whose board I serve. One of the recurring themes during my visit was employee engagement. It is a hot topic and many world class consultancies such as Hewitt, Hay, Gallup, and my old alma mater Louis Allen Worldwide are scrambling to respond to this market interest.

It is my view that fostering employee engagement is the core work of HR functions. In today's fragile economy, competitive advantage is elusive since other firms can pretty much copy your products and emulate your service offerings. However, no one can really copy how your employees feel about your company. Research has shown that organizations with better employee engagement perform better on a number of critical measures, e.g., profitability, customer retention, etc. Engagement means going the extra mile to achieve company goals. It is the extra that affects the competitive advantage.

Research on employee engagement suggests that what drives it varies from company to company, so there are no universal remedies or across the board solutions. What drives it in your organization might be very different than what drives it elsewhere.

We have made many advances in measuring and analyzing employee engagement, but we are in the primitive stages when it comes to targeted interventions. Consultancies seem to know less about how to improve it than they know about measuring it.

The source of implementation wisdom comes from the day to day experience and know-how in job design, carefully architected reward systems, effective leadership practices, and human resources policies and programs. HR departments need to step up and lead with properly configured strategies and programs. You cannot improve employee engagement with training programs, communication blitzes, or focus groups. Sure, these might help but they alone will not sustain change and improvement. It is not the job of consultants to do this. Most consultants lack the knowledge in the fundamentals of human resources management. It is not their mantra. Most make money by being good diagnosticians, not treatment specialists.

Treating the intervening variables may give the illusion of progress, but addressing the causal variables is where the honey is, so to speak. The former is akin to treating the symptoms. Unfortunately, this is where most effort goes in, in my view.

What are your ideas and successes in this area? Are you willing to exchange them? Enjoy the journey along the learning curve.

Job Satisfaction and GDP

I recently traveled to the Middle East. As it is my custom, I always buy the latest issue of the "Economist". In the November 27, 2010 I read an intersting article in the finance and economics section entitled "The Joyless or the Jobless".

The article introduces the topic by discussing briefly the 2006 notion by professor Richard Layard from the London School of Economics arguing that unhappiness was a bigger social problem in Britain than unemployment. The professor went on to point out that more people were claiming incapacity benefits because of depression and other mental disorders than were on the dole (welfare).

With the advent of the economic crisis, it seems that this issue has fixed the problem. The jobless now outnumber the joyless -- there is nothing like a decline in GDP to make everyone aware how much this peculiar metric matters.

Professor Layard has long argued that GDP is overrated as a gauge of a country's well being. Once an economy reaches an income level of $ 15,000 per person, he goes on to point out, economic growth ceases to contribute to happiness. He cites, as an example, that although the average US income is more than Denmark's, there is no evidence that Americans are happier than the Danes. Professor Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson from the Whaton School at the University of Pennsylvania question their colleague's conclusion since they were unable to find a significant statistical proof in the satisfaction test of the proposition.

Academics differ on the value of happiness in policy making. Their disagreement is rooted in the political orientation of those making it -- for or against.

The Declaration of Independence in America mentions happiness as the uneniable right of every person to pursue it, and not by the government to make it its policy. If people know what makes them happy, but do little to pursue it as a goal, there is nothing that the government can do about it.

Studies at Cornell University by professors Daniel Benjamin, Ori Heffetz and Alex Rees-Jones, and Miles Kimbal from the University of Michigan show that, in their study, 70% of respondents would be happier to earn less money and sleeping more. Likewise, almost 2/3 would be happier earning less money and living close to their friends, rather than more money in a city of strangers.

These findings suggest that money is not everything.

But ask people what they would choose as opposed to what would make them happy, and their answers may surprise us: 17% of those who would be happier sleeping more and earning less would still choose the higher paying job. 26% of those prizing short commutes over low rents would still opt for the cheaper home; and 22% of those who value closeness to friends more than higher pay would still move to where they can make more money.

Money may not buy happiness. But why take the chance?

Sobering thoughts about a subject of regular discourse amongst HR professionals. Don't you think?

Enjoy your journey along the learning curve.