Terms of Engagement: How does an organization that is going through major changes get everyone on board, and ensure the best outcome?
By Monica Regan
The only thing that is constant is change. True in life, true in organizations. The book Terms of Engagement: Changing the Way We Change Organizations presents a new method of guiding change. Perdido Editor Monica Regan recently talked with author Richard H. Axelrod about it.
In the following excerpt from his book, Axelrod presents four historical approaches to change in organizations, and a brief overview of the new paradigm called engagement.
Leader-Driven
Whether it be a king or queen from the Middle Ages, a president, a war hero, John Wayne, Moses, or the bold CEO who leads a corporate turnaround, the story is the same. The heroic figure, because of insight, charisma, and leader- ship skills, is able to convince a reluctant group of people to do something they might otherwise not want to do.
Process-Driven
Leaders now sought advice beyond the boundaries of their own organization. Advisers were outsourced. Soon large consulting firms with legions of consultants made their debut on the scene. These firms brought industrial engineering, strategic planning, reengineering, and killer apps to organizations that desperately needed these critical technologies. Eventually, these consulting firms became so powerful that leaders turned over the whole change process to them.
Team-Driven
While leader-and process-driven change largely ignored employees, team-driven change processes recognized two important facts: First, employees at all levels can make enormous contributions toward improving organizations. Second, without the support and commitment of employees at all levels significant organizational change is impossible. Examples of team-driven change include quality circles, employee involvement processes, and team-based organizations.
Change Management
What would happen if the structure for bringing about team-driven change, the parallel organization, was integrated with process-driven change? From this union, change management was born. Its promise was to integrate the benefits of both processes, promoting the creativity, ownership, and commitment that occurs through participation while providing the alleged business focus of process-driven change. By 1990, this integration of the parallel organization with process-driven change had become the standard process for implementing organizational change. Ten years later it's still entrenched.
A New Way-Engagement
Four key principles of the engagement paradigm are: widening the circle of involvement, connecting people to each other and ideas, creating communities for action, and embracing democracy. These key principles are the foundation of a new model for change I call the engagement paradigm. While building on the wisdom of the change management paradigm, the engagement paradigm provides a frame-work for developing not only the support but also the enthusiastic engagement of the entire organization.
MR: You didn't sit down one day and think up a new paradigm.
RHA: It really comes out of our last ten years of work with the Conference Model®. We developed this idea called the conference model in the early 90's. When we looked at the Conference Model we realized that even if we got 100 people in a room we still couldn't get everyone who needed to be involved. We needed to reach people who couldn't be there. We came up with the idea of the Conference Model to involve large numbers of people, and the Walkthru so we could reach people who couldn't attend. We would take information from the first conferences into the Walkthru. Then the information that came out of the Walkthru would provide feedback for the next conferences. We were doing this for a number of years, and we started to ask, "Why is this working? What are the underlying principles?" We started thinking about an engagement paradigms way to use the principles independent of a change methodology.
MR: How is the Engagement paradigm more progressive than the Change Management paradigm?
RHA: I think a couple of reasons. The kinds of companies that use this are at both ends of the pole. One is progressive, positive, and growing fast. They're saving to themselves, "We have to change to keep pace." At the other end of the pole are companies that say, "If we don't change we won't be around." We don't get them in the middle. I think that's because to do the things that we suggest, you have to have a really big issue. People don't want to have their time wasted. They don't want to go to meetings for nothing. In order to justify the cost, it has to be something important. The issues must be big enough, deep enough, and wide enough to warrant (it).
MR: What you are suggesting, it seems, is democracy and more democracy.
RHA: Yes, that's the one that usually gets people's attention. They say, "There's something going on here." The minute you mention democracy, people start saying, "We're gonna have to vote on everything." (That) is not the case. What I mean by democracy is equity and fairness, information sharing, high involvement decision-making, and freedom and autonomy. Voting is not necessarily an indication of democracy. That reminds me of an African cab driver I talked to recently. He had been taking a survey of his customers, just to find out what they think about the last election. He said he came from another country. When they had an election there, the police pulled him over to the side and said, "Have you voted today?" He hadn't. So, they took him to the polling place and said, Now, you know what to do." They let him know exactly how they wanted him to vote.
MR: You give several arguments for involving "the many." One of them is ownership versus resistance. That is, management will encounter less resistance if more people take ownership for the change. But, it seems that this is a lot easier in small companies. How do you work this in a larger organization?
RHA: Involve more people. Have them have a voice in what's going on. That's why we hold these large group conferences that are workshop type sessions which include people from all levels and functions and important others such as customers and suppliers. Sometimes these sessions involve hundreds of people. And we have the Walkthru process where people can get information about what's going on and also give input.
MR: Sounds like an orientation. Do you suggest that all companies have a Walkthru with every person who's hired?
RHA: What I'm talking about is a Walkthru as part of the change process. How are you going to involve 10,000 people in the change process? Even if you involve 1000 people, you still have only 10 percent. You have to have some sort of outreach process. That's what the Walkthru is all about. Here's what happened at (electric utility) Detroit Edison when we were working on the supply chain process. We had two conferences. Between each conference we held a Walkthru so that small groups could get information about what happened in the conference. They could also give their input. They talked about changes that were made at the conference and changes they think need to be made. We found out that we almost tripled the number of volunteers. This is building credibility in the process.
MR: Isn't it true that the larger and more complex the organization, the harder this is?
RHA: Yes, and the more it's necessary, for a couple of reasons. Most people don't understand how they fit. They understand their job. They might understand how The Five Levels of Commitment their group works. But they don't understand how the whole organization works, and how what they do fits into it. Change management seems to address this, but what's different [about the Engagement paradigm] is that in change management, you have a small group of people learning about the system-say 50 People. Maybe the organization (employs) several thousand people. Often when you work with them, they say, "Boy, wouldn't it be great if everybody could be involved." The Engagement paradigm does just that. One company we worked with was a paper mill. There were various parts of the mill. There was chip-making, pulp- making, all these different functions. We brought people in to discover and develop a shared understanding of the whole process, from the time when a log came in the door, through all of the things that happened to make the paper come out the other end. People said, "Oh, I didn't know." Then they were able to say, "We know exactly what went wrong. We can fix that easily."
MR: You talk about innovation not occurring in isolation, but rather when people of differing viewpoints work together. And, you state that adaptability is unlikely unless variety is introduced into a system. But sometimes you hear a worker say, "I wish I could just go to work and do my job, but I have all the political stuff to deal with." Can too much variety and pressure to be adaptable stifle a worker's initiative?
RHA: There are always people who don't want to be involved. One of the ways we handle that is to have people volunteer to be part of the change process. You have to have people who have knowledge and expertise. So sometimes you invite specific individuals and open up the rest of the process to volunteers. Let's say 60 to 70 percent of people there will be volunteers. This reduces cynicism. Otherwise you have people saying, "The only people who are there are those pre- disposed to agree with the changes." Or, they may think that the leaders are going to pick the people who think like them. It's interesting that often when we open up these processes to volunteers we have more than enough volunteers.
MR: You talk about a commitment continuum.
RHA: The reason we came up with the idea of a continuum is people see it as an either/or.
MR: Either you're with us or you're against us?
RHA: Yes. But there are different levels of commitment, from passive to active. What we're talking about is integrity. If I can't say no, my yes becomes suspect. One way you build integrity is to make sure that doubt can be expressed, that it's honored, that it's explored. If these things become sort of cheerleading, sort of a revival meeting, it's going to be a problem. There are different ways people show commitment from quietly supporting to taking high personal risks. For example, sometimes being for the change process is a high personal risk. Once, at the end of one conference, this gentleman got up and said, "We as workers are always complaining they don't listen to us. 'Things could be a lot better. We came here, we've had our say, now it's up to us." Now that's taking personal risk. In one company we're working with now, one of the key leaders is taking an issue to the CEO that's not a popular issue. People in the organization see him as being far out on a limb. People are saying publicly they hope he's not out too far. He is both taking a stand and taking high personal risk, to the point where some people are saying his career is at risk.
MR: In Chapter 7, you talk about disengagement, and some of the causes. One problem is the unwillingness of leaders to personally engage in the process. Aren't there times when people have to think about their own future, about their career, and not throw themselves headlong into a change process?
RHA: If they're not willing to throw themselves into the process, then why are they asking other people to? Go back to the continuum. There are different ways leaders show commitment. Sometimes they show commitment by providing funding and resources. They might not have to be totally involved. Other times they might have to show up personally. Some leaders have a lot of trust; they're well trusted in the organization. They won't have to be there a lot of the time because people know where they stand. But, the leaders usually have information that's necessary for the change. By being present they can make a significant contribution. This isn't just about delegating to the employees. It's about everybody coming together, sharing their knowledge, and being part of the solution.
MR: So, sometimes you have to work with leaders on their disengaging behaviors?
RHA: Yes, we coach them. It all depends on how much the leaders want to shift. How coachable are they? In one hospital we worked with, one of the issues was that they didn't trust the leadership. So we said to the leadership, "In doing this process we really have to work at rebuilding this trust." Two things we really worked with them on were telling the unvarnished truth and when they make commitments, are sure to keep them. We essentially walked them up the "trust triangle." A lot of straight talk, a lot of listening, and when they make commitments, they keep them. Over time this eventually builds trust. Sometimes you have to work with leaders on these issues, but they have to want to make the change. [Editor's note: The "trust triangle" appears in the book. At the base are "straight talk, listening for understanding and making commitments" Above that is "reliability," then "trust," followed by "respect" at the top.]
MR: You warn about ignoring past organizational damage.
RHA: One of the things you see a lot in organizations is this flavor of the month mentality. An organization starts a change process. People get involved to some degree or other. Before long, the leadership brings a new one in, ignoring what has occurred in the past. People wonder, "What about what was already done? What was that good for?"
MR: But what about when the previous damage isn't about a change management process at all? What if an organization has a long-standing tradition of not getting input when changes are made?
RHA: Then this must be taken into consideration. Leaders may have to do a lot of listening as employees talk about their resentment about being left out. But more importantly leaders will have to be credible when they speak about what will be different in the future. Involving people in the design of the change process increases credibility.
MR: So, if a company is using this for the first time...
RHA: You have to give some place where people can talk about their history, and their experiences. And people may ask, "What's different about this? Why is it going to be different?" Then you give them the opportunity to voice these concerns. The quality of those answers determines the extent to which people move forward.
MR: What about the loss of will or willingness to implement?
RHA: We had a company, a consulting firm, where we were called in to use this (engagement) process. People were coming together. Things were going positively for them. Business was booming. They called us in to involve employees in planning for the future, to deal with growth. They were starting to implement those ideas. What leaders didn't understand at the beginning (and maybe we didn't make it clear to them), was that they would have to stay involved. It would require their time and effort. The process kept requiring time from them. They started saying, "We don't have time for this." That was the paradox. Even while people were having great experiences, (the leaders) resented the amount of time it took in planning and preparation. They decided they didn't have time for it. In a sense, they were still growing, doing okay, but the next time they start something, it's going to be much tougher. There will be cynicism (i.e., "Last time you started this but you didn't follow through.").
MR: You describe several discounting behaviors that say, in essence, "I count and you do not." One example is asking people their opinions and not following through.
RHA: If you want to create apathy and cynicism and resistance, then ask people their opinions when the decisions have already been made in the hope that they will choose what you've already decided.
Most of the research on pay shows that pay is a really complex issue. It's a measure of my worth, a measure of my contribution, and a measure of equity. But, mostly pay shows up as an irritant. It's stuff that people get upset about but not the major motivator. One example is how the dot-coms are doing. When you talk to People who have left big organizations to work for dot-coms, pay isn't the first thing that comes out of their mouths. They say, "I can make a difference, I can make an impact, I can learn and grow on this job, I don't have to deal with the bureaucracy." People were really resisting. We arrived in the middle of the process. We had a couple of sessions where people could understand what the system was, give their input, and identify places where the system could fail. What the technology consultants said at end of the session was that they were able to get out all the issues that they were worried about. The union had been fighting this change. At the end, the union was supporting it, and they were asking, "How can we get training?" What the technology firm (that installed the system) is now saying is that when they make new installations they want to have training sessions like that right at the beginning.
MR: Some say stick with your best and brightest and the rest will follow.
RHA: The best and the brightest may provide a useful answer. But this knowledge also resides throughout the organization. When you widen the circle of involvement you not only improve the quality of the solution but you create the ownership necessary for implementation.
MR: If organizations are making technology changes, you say they are making a mistake if they don't use the engagement process.
RHA: One of the things we saw at an air force base (we worked with) was that they had assigned a whole new information system. People were really resisting. We arrived in the middle of the process. We had a couple of sessions where people could understand what the system was, give their input, and identify places where the system could fail. What the technology consultants said at end of the session was that they were able to get out all the issues that they were worried about. The union had been fighting this change. At the end, the union was supporting it, and they were asking, "How can we get training?" What the technology firm (that installed the system) is now saying is that when they make new installations they want to have training sessions like that right at the beginning.
MR: Am I right in hearing you say that sending employees off-site somewhere to learn and expecting them to come back smarter and better prepared is not the way to be a learning organization?
RHA: What we're talking about is knowledge management. The premise is that knowledge management occurs in story-telling. Some people think that knowledge management is creating databases that people can access on the Web. Real knowledge occurs when people tell their story. One of the processes we're working on right now is in a big organization with over 10,000 people. There are many different changes going on in different parts of the organization. People are coming together and telling their stories.
MR: Sounds like a support group.
RHA: It is, but not in the psychological sense. People get more out of sharing their experiences with others than someone lecturing them about lessons learned. If they can sit and talk for an hour about how to do this, what worked and didn't work, there is all sorts of implicit knowledge that gets extracted. Large numbers of people, lots of different viewpoints. There's a lot of knowledge there. When there's increased involvement, there's more innovation and adaptation so learning can occur. A health care group dealing with juvenile diabetes in England used this approach. When this group of professionals met by themselves, they decided that what kids with diabetes need is more education. However, when they brought kids, parents, school cooks, and educators together a different answer emerged. In England, the school cook also goes around and tells the kids what to eat. Kids were telling this group that the cooks were making them eat foods they knew they weren't supposed to. So, the education was focused at the wrong people. It needed to be focused at the cooks.
MR: That process seemed to embody three of the four principles of engagement: widening the circle of involvement, connecting people to each other, and embracing democracy. What about the fourth principle: creating communities for action? The cynic might say, "Sounds like more committees to me, an increase in the bureaucracy."
RHA: With the communities we're talking about, you have a group of people who have a will and a willingness to implement. The problem is not permanent because the changes aren't permanent. People are coming together to work on these issues. So, the community is temporary.
MR: Then how does engagement set a path for the future of the organization?
RHA: One benefit of engagement is that if the leaders stick with the principles, they will be equipped to deal with changes they don't even know are coming. What you're really doing is building capacity in the organization. The lasting benefit is that people at all levels are equipped to deal with change.
Reprinted with permission from Perdido: Leadership with a conscience, Vol. 8 No.