Stop rearranging the deck chairs!

"The future depends on what we do in the present." – Mahatma Gandhi

It happened several times this past week.  I'm networking and meet a business person.  I introduce myself as a consultant dealing in organizational strategy.  The other person responds with something like, "Oh, I'm in strategy, too, I'm in change management."  Yet, when we talk it becomes clear they are not operating at the strategic level, they deal with tactics, facilitating the introduction and development of projects, programs or processes in or between functional areas or departments (IT and accounting, for instance).

No doubt the work of these fellow networkers is of great value to their organizations. But let's recognize two fundamental points:

• Tactics follow strategies: They are not strategies.
• "Change management" and "strategic management" do necessarily equate.

Why don't we get that?

Evidence abounds that we tend not to see that change is often non-strategic and that when we think we are being strategic in pursuing change we often are being tactical instead.

Consider this quote from a change management blog: "Risk assessment of a change management initiative is based on the premise that 'organisational risk' is the inverse of  'change readiness.' In other words, the more ready the organisation is to change, the lower the risk of failure of the change initiative." - "Risk versus Readiness," Strategies for Managing Change.  

No argument that not being ready for change presents a risk of failure for a change initiative.  But isn't the much larger question whether whatever change is effected will appropriately transform the organization?  Looking through a strategy lens, the biggest risk of failure comes not from whether the organization is ready for change, but whether the necessary change will be strategic versus tactical.  "Captain, we have hit an iceberg.  We need to do something!"  "Yes, First Mate, have the crew move the deck chairs to the bow to give the passengers a better view of the iceberg."

In my recent blog post on problems with strategic planning, "Recognize the problem," one strategic planning issue I identified is "confusing strategies with tactics (changing the organization versus making it more efficient)."

Often there is recognition that things need to change.  The issue is the nature of the change we seek or wind up with in the case where change is called for.

Strategic planning facilitators like me will tell you that one of the most important things we can do for organizations is to move the focus from tactical - day-to-day, projects, processes, where we have been and what we do, industry practices and standards, what the competition is doing, and so on - to strategic - how do we fundamentally change the organization to clearly differentiate ourselves, become exponentially better and deliver much greater value to our customers and other stakeholders.

Jan Tucker's Suite 101 blog post, "Types of Change: Developmental, Transitional and Transformational," observes, "The three types of change that occur most frequently in organizations are developmental, transitional and transformational. Change management theories effectively support how to deal with developmental and transitional change, but are less effective at dealing with successfully implementing transformational change."   He explains, "Developmental change occurs when a company makes an improvement to their current business," and "transitional change is more intrusive than developmental change as it replaces existing processes or procedures with something that is completely new to the company." But "when companies are faced with the emergence of radically different technologies, significant changes in supply and demand, unexpected competition, lack of revenue or other major shifts in how they do business, developmental or transitional change may not offer the company the solution they need to stay competitive. Instead of methodically implementing new processes, the company may be forced to drastically transform themselves."

So why don't we recognize that transformational change, not change in tactics or processes, is what strategies need to bring about?  Maybe it's because we are most comfortable with what we know and expect, as opposed to what we don't know and is outside of our experience.  Maybe it's because true transformational change is viewed as risky, while better perfecting what's worked is viewed as less risky.  

Even when the need to change is obvious and the new path is clear, actually changing is hard and faces resistance.  Consider this finding: "Most people are not altering their diets or lifestyles despite knowing how living unhealthily can increase their risk of cancer, a BBC survey finds."

So be discerning when people talk to you about the change they think your organization should pursue. Ask yourself, is this really strategic in nature? Is it transformational change to respond to the demands of a changing environment?  Or are we just improving the view of the iceberg from the deck chairs?

Comments

[david k waltz]

Lee,

I think some of the underlying cause for the phenomenon you describe is our need to see things happen, especially the higher up one goes.

If something can be done and accomplished this quarter, or this year, it tends to get more focus because it is more immediate, and the completion of it is what we seek in order to feel the gratification of "a job well done".

[Lee Crumbaugh]

David, I agree, no doubt we are always tempted to do smaller, immediate, easier things. I think that's basic human nature. But leadership is burdened with the responsibility of continually assessing what's the best, most important thing to be doing, not going with the flow of ease and less resistance. A good leader often has to swim against the current to lead the organization to a better place.