The art of subtle change
Alastair Dryburgh suggests that a subtle approach to change management will have more success than a top-down bold campaign.
Most change management is framed in terms of a struggle, or even a battle, between the forces of ‘change’ and the forces of ‘resistance’. But do you want to start a struggle over change? There's a better way.
If you subscribe to the ‘struggle’ model, you have two options. Either you try to change the resistors, winning them over to your point of view, or you try to overcome them by force. This can work, but it's wasteful. You may spend more time overcoming resistance than in putting in place the changes you want to see. It also fights against some very basic psychology. For most of human history, we lived in a world of desperate scarcity and insecurity. This made us very risk-averse. On the very edge of survival we wouldn't invest even a tiny amount in trying something new because if we invested that tiny amount and it didn't pay off, we were dead. The status quo at least represented survival, so we clung to it. The modern world is quite different, of course, but the old idea is still baked into our psyche.
The greater our anxiety, the more we cling to the status quo, which means that loudly trumpeting the change message will only increase the resistance as will, paradoxically, any implied threat (like ‘get with the programme or get out’ ...).So framing change as a war gets us off to a bad start. Now of course wars can be won, but they are usually a last resort, and not efficient ways of achieving policy objectives.
Consider, however, this loophole. If you present change as the alternative to the status quo, you provoke the struggle. What if, on the other hand, you present change as the way of maintaining the status quo? This subtle move even has the virtue of being true – after all, the status quo is constantly decaying, and needs at the very least maintenance and updating. Let me give you two examples from the actions of two very skilful leaders.
One was the recently appointed head of an organisation with a lengthy history but which was in complete disarray. Radical change was clearly needed, but he realised that ‘radical’ and ‘change’ were the two words he most needed to avoid. Instead, he did all he needed to do under the banner of ‘longevity’ – what do we need to do to ensure the longevity of the organisation, and the longevity of the careers of the people working there? The result was huge change with minimal resistance.
The second was the CEO who asked the question ‘how much do we need to grow for the organisation to remain sustainable?’ The answer turned out to be (as I am sure he knew from the start) that it needed to double in size while abandoning a part of the business which had been central to its identity for decades. Again, very major change with minor resistance.
The models we use tend to create self-fulfilling prophecies. If we expect change to be a battle then it will be, just as if you go out on a Saturday night looking for a fight you will usually find one. I don't think that's what you want, is it? Try a little subtlety instead.
About the author
Alastair Dryburgh is a consultant offering uncommon solutions to common problems.