Organizational change literature
Aiken, C., Keller, S. (2009) The irrational side of change management. The McKinsey
Quarterly, (2),101 - 109, 2009.
In 1996, John Kotter published Leading Change. Considered by many to be the seminal work
in the field of change management, Kotter’s research revealed that only 30 percent of change
programs succeed. It seems that, despite prolific output, the field of change management
hasn’t led to more successful change programs. McKinsey’s Emily Lawson and Colin Price
provided a holistic perspective in “The psychology of change management,”1 which suggests
that four basic conditions are necessary before employees will change their behavior:
a) a compelling story, because employees must see the point of the change and agree
with it;
This is good advice, but in practice there are three pitfalls to achieving the desired
impact.
What motivates you doesn’t motivate most of your employees . when
managers and employees are asked what motivates them the most in their
work they are equally split among five forms of impact—impact on society
(for instance, building the community and stewarding resources), impact on
the customer (for example, providing superior service), impact on the
company and its shareholders, impact on the working team (for example,
creating a caring environment), and impact on “me” personally (my
development, paycheck, and bonus).
You’re better off letting them write their own story . When people choose
for themselves they are more committed to the outcome, eventhough it
seems like a waste of time to let people discover their own paths.
It takes a story with both + and – to create real energy . a story focused on
what’s wrong invokes blame and creates fatigue and resistance, doing little
to engage people’s passion and experience. an overemphasis on the positive
can lead to watered- down aspirations and impact. The reason is that, as
humans, we are more willing to take risks to avoid losing what we’ve got
than we are to gain something more. Some anxiety is useful when it comes
to spurring behavioral change.
Leaders believe mistakenly that they already are the change.
Influence leaders aren’t a panacea for making change happen. success
depends less on how persuasive a few selected leaders are and more on
how receptive the “society” is to the idea. In practice it is often unexpected
members of the rank and file who feel compelled to step up and make a
difference in driving change.
Money is the most expensive way to motivate people. for human beings
satisfaction equals perception minus expectation (an equation often
accompanied by the commentary, “reality has nothing to do with it”).
The process and the outcome have to the outcome have got to be fair.
Employees will go against their own self-interest if the situation violates
other notions they have about fairness and justice.
Employees are what they think, feel and believe in. As managers attempt to
drive performance by changing the way employees behave, they all too
often neglect the thoughts, feelings, and beliefs that, in turn, drive behavior.
Good intentions aren’t enough.
, b) role modeling, because they must also see the CEO and colleagues they admire
behaving in the new way;
c) reinforcing mechanisms, because systems, processes, and incentives must be in line with
the new behavior; and
d) capability building, because employees must have the skills required to make the desired
changes.
One of its merits is its intuitive appeal: many managers feel that, once revealed, it is simply
good common sense. And this, we believe, is precisely where things go wrong. The
prescription is right, but rational managers who attempt to put the four conditions in place by
applying “common sense” typically misdirect time and energy, create messages that miss the
mark, and experience frustrating unintended consequences from their efforts to influence
change. Why? Because when they implement the prescription, they disregard certain,
sometimes irrational—but predictable—elements of human nature.
Aronowitz, S., De Smet, A., McGinty, D. (2015) Getting organizational redesign right.
McKinsey Quarterly, June 2015, 1 - 11.
Many companies these days seem to be in a nearly permanent state of change. One plausible
explanation for this new flurry of activity is the accelerating pace of strategic change driven
by the disruption of industries. As a result, every time a company switches direction, it alters
the organization to deliver the hoped-for results. Frustratingly, it also appears that the
frequency of organizational redesign reflects a high level of disappointment with the outcome.
Less than 25% of the organizational-redesign succeeds. Organizational redesign involves the
integration of structure, processes, and people to support the implementation of strategy and
therefore goes beyond the traditional tinkering with “lines and boxes.”. When the
organizational redesign of a company matches its strategic intentions, everyone will be
primed to execute and deliver them. The company’s structure, processes, and people will all
support the most important outcomes and channel the organization’s efforts into achieving
them.
A successful organizational redesign should better focus the resources of a company on its
strategic priorities and other growth areas, reduce costs, and improve decision making and
accountability. We believe that companies can learn from the way successful redesigners
overcome challenges. By combining the results of our research and the insights we’ve gained
from working with multiple companies on these issues, we’ve identified nine golden rules.
They cover everything from early alignment, redesign choices, and reporting structures to
performance metrics, the nature of effective leadership, and the management of risks.
Individually, each of the rules is helpful. Our research shows, though, that 73 percent of the
executives whose companies followed more than six of them felt that the organizational
redesign had succeeded. Executives at these companies were six times more likely to “declare
victory” than those at companies that adopted just one or two.
1. Focus first on the longer-term strategic aspirations Leaders often spend too much
time on the current deficiencies of an organization. It’s easy, of course, to get fixated
on what’s wrong today and to be swayed by the vocal (and seemingly urgent)
complaints of frustrated teams and their leaders. However, redesigns that merely
address the immediate pain points often end up creating a new set of problems.
Companies should therefore be clear, at the outset, about what the redesign is intended
to achieve and ensure that this aspiration is inextricably linked to strategy.
