Benjamin Disraeli once remarked that ‘in a civilised society, change is the only constant.’ Given the times we live in and the events of the past year, it would seem that Disraeli’s words are more true than ever. As managers and leaders of organisations, we live with a constant stream of changes, planned and unplanned, some generated within our organisations, some forced upon us from outside. Managing change is one of the primary functions of the manager; indeed, it could be argued with some justice that nearly all management is about managing change in some form or other.
Managing change is one of those things that is easy to talk about but somewhat harder to do. In large part, this is down to human nature. As anyone who has ever run a change management programme will know, even the prospect of change, even talking about it around the coffee machine, is likely to provoke a campaign of resistance.
Opponents of change typically come in three forms. First there are those who agree with the need for change in theory, but disagree over the nature of change and the proposed direction of travel. Second, there are those who see advantage for themselves and seek to play politics. For example, they might try to take over parts of the change process in order to make themselves look good and enhance their chances of promotion. Or they might try to bend the change process in order to gain more power and authority for themselves. And finally, there are those who will resist any form of change, and will try to maintain the status quo.
Overcoming resistance
The first group is comparatively easy to deal with. If people are prepared to accept change, that is half the battle won. Those who have different ideas about what changes are required can be negotiated with. If they are enthusiastic about change, it is necessary to get them on board. And, too, we need to stop and examine their ideas. It is always possible that they are right, and we are wrong; maybe their direction is the better one after all.
When managers at the Indian watch-maker Titan imposed a retroactive change to the company’s pension plan terms and conditions, workers walked out on strike. They were not opposed to the changes, merely to making them retroactive, a measure they felt had not been discussed or agreed to. The interesting thing about this case is that in going on strike, the workers believed they were acting in the best interest of the company as a whole. They argued that they were the true custodians of the company’s values, and that the managers who imposed the change did not represent what the company stood for. The company chair agreed with the workers and repealed the retroactive change.
The second and third groups, the political game players and the diehard opponents of change, are much harder to deal with. The second group are portrayed in Anthony Jay’s book, Management and Machiavelli, when he describes how political factions took over a large business, with various ‘barons’ fighting each other for control and resisting any attempt at reform by head office. The chief executive ultimately quit the business, arguing that he had been rendered powerless.
According to management scholar Chris Argyris, the third group, the diehards, are sometimes composed of people who, like the workers at Titan, believe they know best what is good for the company, and that any change will be deleterious to its interests. Many others, however, are motivated by good old-fashioned fear of the unknown. For many people, change represents uncertainty, which in turn means risk. We see this in workers refusing to abandon old-fashioned ways of working which are slow and less productive, or people clinging on to outmoded technologies.
Internal politics and refusal to change taken together can be a dangerous combination. At IBM in the 1980s, poor leadership had led to the development of baronies like the one described by Anthony Jay, along with an entrenched opposition to change. As a result, the once dominant company in the computer industry had lost ground to more agile and flexible competitors. Lou Gerstner, who became chair in 1993 with a remit to reform the company, found that in the end the only way he could get rid of those who opposed his change programme was to ease them out of the company. Tens of thousands of people were ultimately made redundant.
Preparing for change
It is far less painful and expensive to make sure that opposition is dealt with before the change programme begins. Any change programme needs to be carefully planned, and that planning should begin with an assessment of the people who are involved in the change. Who are they? What is their motivation for working? That last question is particularly important. If people are motivated by job satisfaction, or by the desire to serve customers better or do work that is meaningful to them, then it should be easier to persuade them to go along with the need for change. According to change theorists such as Rosabeth Moss Kanter, if people can see the benefits and rewards that change will bring, they are more likely to embrace it. If, however, they are motivated by job security and remuneration, they are more likely to perceive change as a threat.
To cite Kanter again, an important part of preparing for change is to identify where resistance may be encountered, and then develop strategies for neutralising it. Most companies use a mixture of carrot and stick. Rewards are offered to people in order to persuade them to support change; more money, promotion, bigger offices. The threat of punishment is held over the heads of the recalcitrant; go along with the plan, or be prepared for redeployment to less interesting work, postings to the subsidiary in Outer Mongolia, or redundancy.
These methods are relatively crude, and don’t always work. In the case of IBM, Lou Gerstner felt he had to take drastic action, but gurus such as Kanter and fellow Harvard scholar Paul Lawrence argue that a much more effective approach is participation. Encouraging the rest of the organisation to participate in the change process from the beginning – including deciding what will be changed, how, and when – is much more likely to bring people on board and make them enthusiastic for change.
We humans are a perverse species, and while we tend to fear change, we are also at the same time quite fond of it. Psychologists tell us that this is a matter of control. The changes we fear are those that are forced – or are perceived to be forced – upon us by other people. The changes we embrace are the ones we think of ourselves. For that reason, one business leader of my acquaintance rarely gives orders or instructions to her staff regarding change. Instead, she lays out the situation and invites people to think of things that might be done. When they agree a solution among themselves, they are then ready and willing to set about implementing it.
One of the most effective companies when it came to harnessing employee brain power and encouraging participation was Cadbury Brothers, not the bloated, profit-focused international corporation that was eventually sold to Kraft, but the original Quaker chocolate maker based in the suburbs of Birmingham. Cadbury Brothers had a number of mechanisms for employee engagement, including an employee suggestion scheme and works committees, composed of managers and employees from every level right down to the shop floor. One of the tasks of the committees was to scrutinise suggestions and decide which ones to take forward. One of the partners, Edward Cadbury, later reported that about 10% of suggestions were acted upon, with rewards given to those who suggested them.
A figure of 10% may not sound like much, but coupled with the rewards it was enough to keep employees engaged with the scheme. The variety and ingenuity of suggestions won the admiration of observers. The consultant Herbert Casson commented simply that, ‘At Cadbury, everyone thinks.’ Not only were Cadbury staff enthusiastic about change, but the level of innovation drove Cadbury Brothers from being a regional chocolate maker to the world’s largest confectionery maker, a position it held for more than 40 years.
Participation is not easy to manage. Suggestion schemes don’t always work; employees sometimes fail to treat them seriously, especially if managers ignore suggestions and fail to implement good ideas. Consultation with employees about key decisions is time-consuming and can often lead to confusion with a mass of different ideas and complete lack of agreement about where the company should go. Some managers argue that it is not down to employees to make decisions; that is what they themselves are paid to do.
Making change happen
But management is not an exact science, and what works well in one organisation does not always work well in others. One absolute constant about change, however, is the need for leadership to drive change through. Leaders are required to start the change process rolling, even if they leave the choice of what, how and when to others. They are needed to give impetus and to overcome roadblocks, technological, financial or human, that can throw change processes off track. And also, they need to motivate them to accept change and to get involved in a positive, proactive way, to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.
In Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s view, the most important aspects of leadership in a time of change are communication, clear vision, persistence and sharing credit. Leaders need to be constantly talking to people, reminding them of why the change is important and necessary and what the benefits will be. They need persistence and patience because the road to change can be long and hard and change management programmes almost never go to plan. And most of all, they need to share credit and reward others for their successes, because ultimately, leaders and managers don’t make change themselves. All they do is create the conditions so others can do so.
About the author
Morgen Witzel is a Fellow of the Exeter Centre for Leadership at the University of Exeter Business School. His book The Ethical Leader was published in November 2018.
