Italy agileday2011 dis_kaleidoscope

Kaleidoscope A framework to design changes

The change flow chart Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008 Analyse competitive position: change need ed Identify desired future state Why and what Manage the transition: leadership issues Evaluate the change outcomes Design transition: levers and mechanisms Identify change approach Analyse change context How

The kaleidoscope Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008 Design Choices Change path Change start point Change style Change target Change levers Change roles To THEN design the program Organizational change context Design Choices Change path Change start point Change style Change target Change levers Change roles Time Scope Preservation Diversity Capability Capacity Readiness Power Understanding The context

The kaleidoscope Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008 Time Organizational change context Design Choices Change path Change start point Change style Change target Change levers Change roles Time Scope Preservation Diversity Capability Capacity Readiness Power

Time directly affects the change path ( big bang or incremental) and change style (top-down/bottom-up) design choices
Some organizations may have the luxury of time but not perceiving the need to change had to struggle
On the other hand it can happen that even not having too much time it is however impossible to implement a fast path to change …
Time Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008

The kaleidoscope Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008 Time Scope Organizational change context Design Choices Change path Change start point Change style Change target Change levers Change roles Time Scope Preservation Diversity Capability Capacity Readiness Power

Breadth : whole organization or just one part ?
Depth: transformation or realignment ?
Speed (nature) of change: short or medium/long term
Scope Extent of Change Transformation Realignment Incremental Big Bang Evolution Adaptation Reconstruction Revolution Speed of Change

The kaleidoscope Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008 Time Scope Preservation Organizational change context Design Choices Change path Change start point Change style Change target Change levers Change roles Time Scope Preservation Diversity Capability Capacity Readiness Power

Tangible assets such as physical, human and financial resources
Intangible assets as ‘know-how’ and ‘tacit knowledge’, embedded in an organization and not codified in any procedure
Hard-to-replace assets with revolution could be risky path
if it is more to do with retention of particular staff groups the style of change could be collaborative or educative
on the other hand could be an obstacle to transformational change if under discussions are features in the past might have been assets
Preservation Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008

The kaleidoscope Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008 Time Scope Preservation Diversity Organizational change context Design Choices Change path Change start point Change style Change target Change levers Change roles Time Scope Preservation Diversity Capability Capacity Readiness Power

Are the different staff/professional groups relatively homogeneous or heterogeneous in terms of values, norms and attitudes ?
It could mean different national cultures or different professional or occupational groups
Diversity can affect the change path (e.g. merger)
Diversity Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008

The kaleidoscope Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008 Time Scope Preservation Diversity Capability Organizational change context Design Choices Change path Change start point Change style Change target Change levers Change roles Time Scope Preservation Diversity Capability Capacity Readiness Power

Organizational, managerial and personal capability to implement change.
An organization can be very good at delivering operational change, however this does not necessarily imply the capability in transformational change.
Individual  how much flexible and adaptable are managers and non-managerial staff ?
Organizational  some organizations can be expert at particular types of changes, such as mergers or acquisition
Capability Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008

The kaleidoscope Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008 Time Scope Preservation Diversity Capability Capacity Organizational change context Design Choices Change path Change start point Change style Change target Change levers Change roles Time Scope Preservation Diversity Capability Capacity Readiness Power

How much can the organization invest in the proposed change?
Cash  ‘new technology’ or ‘symbolic change’ such as redesigning of existing office layout
Time  senior and especially middle managers could not have enough time to develop the required changes.
People  Are there enough people to create the momentum to drive the organization in the indicated direction ?
Capacity can affect change path, in facts a big-bang program can require pretty much money and even an incremental change if requiring line manager new capabilities can be expensive.
Capacity Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008

The kaleidoscope Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008 Time Scope Preservation Diversity Capability Capacity Readiness Organizational change context Design Choices Change path Change start point Change style Change target Change levers Change roles Time Scope Preservation Diversity Capability Capacity Readiness Power

Readiness is the extent to which the staff are:
Aware of the need of the change (note, it does not imply commitment). Low awareness can derive from the inadequacy of communication in an organization about the need of change.
Committed to make personal changes. Whereas the communication to change could be relatively easy, commitment must be implemented at personal level and it is hard to create (sense of urgency to change!)
Readiness for change Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008

Do you perceive the urgency to change like this ... | 3HH-05731-5003-DFZZA

or you should feel more and more like this other!

The kaleidoscope Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008 Time Scope Preservation Diversity Capability Capacity Readiness Power Organizational change context Design Choices Change path Change start point Change style Change target Change levers Change roles Time Scope Preservation Diversity Capability Capacity Readiness Power

Power can be in the hands of individuals of groups of people
or in the hands of the organizations to determine their own future
A useful way of assessing who has power on the proposed change for the change agent is to use stakeholder analysis
Power Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008

The link between senior management and organization
Undertake personal change
Help teams through change
Keep the business going in the interim
Middle managers

Establish direction/Develop the vision
Align people
Motivating and inspiring the staff
Middle managers need support! Change creates an additional workload!

Designing the transition

Evolution
A change implemented gradually through different and interrelated initiatives (likely planned)
Revolution
A change occurring via simultaneous initiatives on many fronts and relatively fast (such as 18 months)
Adaptation
Non paradigmatic change implemented gradually through stage initiatives
Reconstruction
As adaptation but implemented in a much faster and dramatic fashion
Change path Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008

Simplistically as top-down or bottom-up
Bottom up change encourages the people ownership but it is normally slower and less predictable
Normally a mix of the two approaches can be combined at the best
Possible also a pockets of good practice
A department implementing a set of new best practices can drive the change in the rest of the organization
Pilots can increase the awareness of the need of change
Change ‘start point’ Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008

It is ‘ collaborative’ if objectives and implementation are shared
It is ‘participative’ when it is asked about how to deliver
It is ‘ directive’ whenever the change leaders make the majority of decisions about what and how: authority is used to direct change.
It is ‘ coercive’ whenever the change is imposed on staff
Note that a top-down starting point could have associated a collaborative or participative style.
Change style Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008 Objectives Implementation Style Y Y Collaborative N Y Partecipative N N Directive

Behaviors , outputs or values
Outputs
e.g. profit margins, sales levels, level of customer response, ...
Performance objectives (e.g. KPIs)
Change targets Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008

Behaviors
Attitude change in individuals (by e.g. training) leads to behavior change when back in organizational setting
On the other hand individuals can change if their organizational system changes
Change targets Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008
Attitude-led change: attitude  behavior  organization
Behavior-led change : organization  behavior  Attitude

Technical: organization structures and control systems.
Political: power structures
Cultural: symbols, stories, rituals, routines
… . and a huge amount of communication!!
Change outputs  mainly technical levers
Change behavior  mainly technical and political levers
Change values  all the levers with a huge degree of communication and training
Change levers Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008

Change is only likely to succeed if someone is responsible of.
Change champion  such as the VP or CEO
External facilitator  such as consultants
Change action team  coalition
Functional delegation  HR or competence center manager
Change roles Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008

The Struggle to Change

Designing the transition: looking at the context! Design Choices Change path Change start point Change style Change target Change levers Change roles Source: Balogun & H. Haley, 2008 Time (Neutral) Scope (Negative) Preservation (Neutral) Diversity (Neutral) Capability (Negative) Capacity (Neutral) Readiness (Negative) Power (Negative) Change Kaleidoscope for real case organization Positive features facilitate change, negative features hinder change

Time : organization is not in a big crisis and time is not a constraint.
Designing the transition: looking at the context!
Scope : change should be intensively applied across the organization
Preservation : good quality and capability to keep delivery dates must be preserved as much as possible, whereas attitude to a bureaucratic approach and complacency must be removed as priority
Diversity : different cultures and mindset between product strategy and R&D departments and also between the two main locations in EU are normally managed in a reasonable way.
Capability : middle managers are … very brillaint managers but they do not seem to have the skill to drive a transition. If thinking to Agile / Scrum migration very different ideas and large misconceptions are still alive across the organization despite the location.

Capacity : budgetary and manpower restrictions do not encourage to change. However the organization has demonstrated to spend money whenever an improvement is clearly envisaged.
Designing the transition: looking at the context!
Readiness : it is quite low. Some of the key actors still have an high degree of complacency. Staff is generally yet unaware of the threats from global competition and new best practices are very slowly taken into account.
Power : some powerful stakeholders are in the position to slowdown the path to change. Guiding coalition is not fully in place and the change lead is not empowered enough to be effective in the day by day organizational activities

Designing the transition: which choices … to make READINESS and CAPABILITY CHANGE ENABLERS ?

Designing the transition: style and starting point
Starting point : change it is initiated by VP, being so top-down. The change is likely organization wide being employees be more willing to adopt change when they see their managers following the new implementation …
Style : Initially directive it has been tuned to be cooperative but thanks to the fact that time is not so critical a cooperative approach has been used also. Organizational workshops with top managers were planned to build a powerful guiding coalition and to allow people to expose their concern. Attitude-led sessions driven by external facilitator to increase mutual trustiness.

Designing the transition: the levers
Levers
Personal development courses for senior / middle managers and for some level of staff to encourage to recognize the need to change
Low awareness of the urgency to change is primarily a reflection of the inadequacy of communication: a rich variety of channels to improve communications can be largely used (e.g. lunchtime workshops, brown bag seminar, 1/2h pill, …).
Setup regular meetings between departments increasing common global awareness of the urgency to change avoiding sentences such as ….
“ Yes, we have our problems, but they are not that terrible and I am doing my job just fine” …

Designing the transition: the path Evolution Reconstruction
Path 1 st step : rapid realignment to increase main change enablers as capability and readiness. Special actions have to be put in place to obtain this goal in a relatively short timeframe (6/9 months)
Path 2 nd step : a more incremental step to change some fundamental organizational aspects involving basic assumption for product development (go stepwise towards an Agile/Scrum oriented organization)
Extent of Change Transformational Realignment Incremental Big Bang Adaptation Revolution Speed of Change Stage 1 Stage 2

The targets
Attitude-led actions continuously in progress
Top 5 priority changes
exercise to build empathy
Behaviors should change
The system will be modified as well
Behavior-led or KPI change to be planned later
Build a powerful vision
Derive a well defined mission & strategy accordingly

Bibliography
Julia Balogun, Veronica Hope Hailey, “ Exploring strategic change ”, 3 rd edition 2008, Financial Times Prentice Hall,
John Kotter, “ Leading Change ”, 1996, Harvard Business School Press
Linda Gratton, “ Hot Spots: Why Some Companies Buzz with Energy and Innovation - and Others Don't”, 2007, Financial Times Prentice Hall
Patrick Lencioni, “ Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions
of a Team: A Field Guide for Leaders, Managers,
and Facilitators ”, 2005, Jossey-Bass
TRUST based on Honesty and Vulnerability Healthy and Unfiltered CONFLICT Collective COMMITMENT Holding each other ACCOUNTABLE Focus on RESULTS

Italy agileday2011 dis_kaleidoscope

by rromuald on Nov 22, 2011

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

Italy agileday2011 dis_kaleidoscope Presentation Transcript