Change Management Toolbook

"Are you personally ready for change? Is your team in serious need of new ways to work together? How can your organization deal with a change project which lacks focus or direction? Do you want to know why change is inevitable but hard to achieve? Do you want to surf on the waves of change? You will find some of the answers to your questions in the new Change Management Toolbook website.

"The Change Management Toolbook is a collection of more than 120 tools, methods and strategies which you can apply during different stages of personal, team and organizational development, in training, facilitation and consulting. It is divided into three principle sections: Self, Team and Larger System.

"Self
Change Management starts and ends with individuals. As the system theory says, you cannot really predict how a person reacts to a certain stimulus. So, if you want to introduce change into a system, you will most likely need to think about what skills, behaviours and belief systems the members of the system will need to be part of the change effort.

"Team
At the heart of modern organizations are teams that share the responsibility and the resources for getting things done. Most projects are too complex to be implemented by one person, most services need different specialists and support staff to be delivered, and most products are the result of the work of a larger resources team or supply chain. We know that teams can either perform at their peak, or can be terribly inefficient.

"Larger Systems
Change processes are mostly initiated by either individuals or small teams, but the focus of change is one which goes beyond that small unit. It is directed towards the entire organization, or towards other organizations. A change project might be related to a community, a region or an entire society (and, yes: to the world as a whole)."

Share

The Change to a Partnership Organization

This excellent and comprehensive article by Riane Esler and Alfonso Montouri explains that, "beginning to recognize and acknowledge Partnership in ourselves and in others, and finding creative alternatives for Dominator thinking and behaviors is a first step towards building a Partnership organization." Continuing in pertinent part:

Eisler (1987, 1995, 1997, Eisler & Loye 1998) have addressed these issues by identifying two contrasting models of social systems: the Dominator Model and the Partnership Model. Dominator systems are fear-based, characterized by rigid hierarchies of domination (where power is equated with giving orders that must be obeyed), an ethos of conquest (including the “conquest of nature”), a high degree of institutionalized or built-in violence, male domination, and contempt for “soft” or stereotypically feminine values. Partnership systems are trust-based, and characterized by equalitarianism and “flatter” organization, flexible hierarchies of actualization (where power is guided by values such as caring and caretaking), by a naturebased spirituality, a low degree of violence built into the system, and gender equality and equity...

Today, this “command-and-control” model is not only inappropriate; it is becoming increasingly dysfunctional. Bureaucratic rigidity is deadly for organizations that wish to navigate successfully in a rapidly changing environment where innovation and flexibility are key factors...The shift to partnership systems is essential if we are to bring about the changes in organizations and society at large needed for the 21st century...

We can see that much of what is happening today is the conflict between a shift towards partnership systems, countered by dominator resistance. We can also see that much that is today being advocated in the organizational development field is a move toward an overarching partnership model.

1) Flatter, less rigid hierarchical organizations.
As the economic and social environment becomes ever more complex and rapidly changing, the rigid bureaucratic structures of bygone days have become maladaptive. Innovation, flexibility, and individual initiative were inhibited by such structures...

2) Change in the role of manager, from “the cop” to a facilitator, supportive role...

3) From Power Over to Power To/With...
This is a shift from domination to co-creation, or from coercive power to generative power. Power-over is designed to either work one’s way up the hierarchy of domination or to fend off contenders. It is the single most important contributor to that vast, unspoken shadow that hangs over all organizations: office politics. In a dominator system, most political relationships are viewed in terms of the acquisition of power-over. In partnership systems, the orientation to “ power to” or actualizing power and “power-with” leads to a very different attitude, one that starts off by asking, “how can we best work together to solve problems?”

4) Teamwork...
5) Diversity...
6) Gender-balance...

7) Creativity and Entrepreneurship...
In dominator systems, there is an ambiguous relationship with creativity: it is viewed a great gift, and at the same time potentially enormously disruptive, a threat to the established order. In partnership systems, creativity is both highly valued and rewarded. While partnership creativity does not exclude dramatic creative changes, it also fosters creative relationships and creative approaches to everyday problems...

Dominator thinking is polarizing thinking. It leads to the kind of thinking that does not allow for possibilities beyond either/or and all/nothing. Polarizing blocks us from exploring possibilities beyond black or white, and prevents us from making creative changes...sometimes it is hard to see into the real-life implications of Partnership if we're stuck in a polarizing Dominator logic. Some basic and common misconceptions include:

Myth: Its a dog-eat-dog world, and there's nothing we can do about.
Reality: The world is what we make it, and human relations are socially constructed...

Myth: There is no hierarchy in the partnership organization.
Reality: The partnership organization has hierarchies of actualization-based not on force, but on competence, temporal priority, values, and other criteria.

Myth: Partnership is just working together, it means alliances, or collaboration.
Reality: Collaboration occurs in both partnership and dominator systems, but patterned differently in each. Partnership collaboration stresses mutual benefit-and not just to the collaborators, but to those affected by the collaboration...

Myth: In partnership everything is done by consensus.
Reality: Doing everything by consensus can lead to more subtle but just as pervasive forms of domination. Partnership requires give and take. Compromise can be creative.

Myth: In partnership there is no conflict, no differences.
Reality: There are always differences and conflicts. But how they are viewed and dealt with are different in a Dominator or Partnership context...

.

Share

Keys to Transformational Leadership

"Four key functions collectively define a successful role for the CEO in a transformation:

Making the transformation meaningful. People will go to extraordinary lengths for causes they believe in, and a powerful transformation story will create and reinforce their commitment. The ultimate impact of the story depends on the CEO’s willingness to make the transformation personal, to engage others openly, and to spot- light successes as they emerge.

Role-modeling desired mind-sets and behavior. Successful CEOs typically embark on their own personal transformation journey. Their actions encourage employees to support and practice the new types of behavior.

Building a strong and committed top team. To harness the transformative power of the top team, CEOs must make tough decisions about who has the ability and motivation to make the journey.

Relentlessly pursuing impact. There is no substitute for CEOs rolling up their sleeves and getting personally involved when significant financial and symbolic value is at stake."

Read more in The McKinsey Quarterly: The CEO's role in leading transformation.

Share

Change Management Primer

Change Management 101 provides a detailed overview of the concept of “change management.” It was written primarily for people who are coming to grips with change management problems for the first time and for more experienced people who wish to reflect upon their experience in a structured way, stating:

"Organizations are highly specialized systems and there are many different schemes for grouping and classifying them. Some are said to be in the retail business, others are in manufacturing, and still others confine their activities to distribution. Some are profit-oriented and some are not for profit. Some are in the public sector and some are in the private sector. Some are members of the financial services industry, which encompasses banking, insurance, and brokerage houses. Others belong to the automobile industry, where they can be classified as original equipment manufacturers (OEM) or after-market providers. Some belong to the health care industry, as providers, as insureds or as insurers. Many are regulated, some are not. Some face stiff competition, some do not. Some are foreign-owned and some are foreign-based. Some are corporations, some are partnerships, and some are sole proprietorships. Some are publicly held and some are privately held. Some have been around a long time and some are newcomers. Some have been built up over the years while others have been pieced together through mergers and acquisitions. No two are exactly alike.

The preceding paragraph points out that the problems found in organizations, especially the change problems, have both a content and a process dimension. It is one thing, for instance, to introduce a new claims processing system in a functionally organized health insurer. It is quite another to introduce a similar system in a health insurer that is organized along product lines and market segments. It is yet a different thing altogether to introduce a system of equal size and significance in an educational establishment that relies on a matrix structure. The languages spoken differ. The values differ. The cultures differ. And, at a detailed level, the problems differ. However, the overall processes of change and change management remain pretty much the same, and it is this fundamental similarity of the change processes across organizations, industries, and structures that makes change management a task, a process, and an area of professional practice."

Share