Change
I gave a brief presentation Saturday on the subject of managing change to a group of future Rotary club leaders . Here is how I started my remarks:
"Let me tell you the easiest way to fail as a change agent. Go back to your club and say, 'Folks, we need to change!'"
There are circumstances in which an organization's leader might well be given the charge by the board of directors or governing body to effect dramatic changes. This kind of broad support can be crucial when the organization is facing a crisis, particularly one that constitutes a threat to its very existence. There are executives who are particularly skilled at leading change in such an environment. I am not one of those.
Over the course of my career in city management, including my recent assignments as an interim manager, I have led eight different organizations. In all of them, there was trepidation evident among the senior staff when I walked through the doors for the first time. They knew very little about me and about the changes I might make. In general, these individuals were comfortable with the way things had been. My being there carried with it the potential for disruption to their routines. The prospect of change was unsettling to them, whether or not they admit recognized it.
When serving as an interim manager, I attempt to reassure my executive team. I tell them that I intend to avoid major changes and I tell them why. Things I change can be changed again by the incoming manager. It does no one any good to subject the organization to two major course alterations, particularly if one of them can be avoided.
I commit to leaving things pretty much the way they are for other reasons. It offers a measure of stability to an organization going through a transition. It allows the team to focus on the work that is already underway and to plan for projects and initiatives to be undertaken over the next few years. Importantly, such an approach helps to build trust.
I will note that I am not reluctant to make changes if I find they are needed. I have done so everywhere I have worked. For the most part, however, these have been operational in nature. As such, they are no different than any competent manager would do in similar circumstances. Because these typically come after the staff has become familiar with me, I do not encounter much opposition.
There is another problem with talking about change, apart from the distaste that it causes for many. The term lacks specificity and context. Changing might mean evolving, adapting, transforming, innovating, solving problems or building capacity. Being clear about what exactly needs to be done is the beginning of creating an appetite for change.
Providing clarity of purpose is important when managing change in any organization, but it is absolutely essential in a setting like a Rotary club where the participants are there voluntarily. Members who are upset by alterations to the status quo are bound only to the extent of the strength of their commitment to the organization's ideals and how it aligns with their personal identities. Paid staff of other organizations can and will take their skills and knowledge elsewhere if they do not support the new direction.
Here is the second thing I told these Rotary leaders:
Nothing is so screwed up that no one benefits from it.
I did not originate this truism, but I wish I had. I don't know where I first heard. I do know that the speaker used somewhat more colorful language than is appropriate for this article.
It points to one of the important challenges that problem-solvers and innovators face. Some people are content with the status quo and must be dragged kicking and screaming into a different future. It doesn't matter that the status quo is a disaster waiting to happen. In some cases, the way things are is advantageous to them. Perhaps it gives them status or power. Some people actually thrive on chaos and can be counted on to add to it when given the chance. Some will oppose change just because they are don't know that there is a better future ahead.
Whatever the reason for their opposition to change initiatives, ignoring these individuals will likely spell trouble for those in leadership. Nay-sayers can usually be counted on to be disruptive in ways little and great. In an organization like Rotary, they can wait for a year until the club president is out of office. Interim managers are often around for even shorter periods. For other executives, disrupters will work behind the scenes to undermine their authority and support, and keep their fingers crossed for a short tenure.
On occasion, an unrelated crisis occurs that can provide an opportunity overcome such opposition and open the door to changes, even those only marginally related to the crisis itself. At these times, executives should consider heeding advice attributed to Winston Churchill:
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Few other situations have the importance and urgency of a crisis. For those occasions, patience is a virtue leaders should demonstrate.
Resisting the temptation to implement change quickly and thoughtlessly provides the executive the opportunity to build support for proposed solutions and innovations. It can be frustrating at times to address the obstacles that are thrown in the path to progress. The commitment to do so, however, can help to ensure that the change will endure. After all, if sustainability is not the focus of efforts to innovate and build organizational capacity, then why bother?
There are various approaches to problem-solving and innovation to which leaders should turn when a course correction is warranted or when there are opportunities for achieving greater success. Those I have used, and others with which I am familiar, offer similar steps to move from ideation to design to implementation and, finally, to evaluation. A clear, methodical, iterative, team-based approach to change will yield far better results than a hazy, hasty, slapdash, solo effort.