Читать книгу Change - Gaurav Gupta - Страница 16

The third stream of research contributing to our emerging theory of change has explicitly focused on observing organizations and individuals in them as they try to purposefully adapt to a shifting context. It also draws on both historical and contemporary studies of leadership.

In an early, foundational piece of this research, we found that transformation efforts failed when there was an insufficient sense of urgency to deal with a faster-moving world. Problems were exacerbated when too small a group, lacking broadly relevant knowledge, connections throughout the organization, leadership skills, and/or a strong sense of urgency was put in charge of driving complex change. This often led to an underdeveloped and undercommunicated strategic vision.

Without sufficient communication of a rational and emotionally compelling case for change, it was nearly impossible to achieve buy-in that inspired and mobilized the action required to drive and sustain difficult changes. Management was resistant to ceding control and too often got in the way of broad-based action. Short-term wins were insufficient to provide credibility and momentum, and when they did occur, they were not celebrated early enough or often enough, which caused any built-up urgency to falter.

When successes were seen, there was a tendency to declare victory too soon and stop short of the finish line. People also underestimated how fragile new changes were, and didn't take the time to truly institutionalize them in the organization's systems and structures.

Our understanding of successful change (and common pitfalls) has continued to deepen and expand based on a number of follow-up studies that continue to add detail and nuance. These studies have addressed the more recent consequences of an increasingly complex, uncertain, and fast-moving world.

In addition to reinforcing the original failure points outlined above, we have seen that the most successful large-scale change efforts start with a clearly articulated, compelling, and emotionally inspiring opportunity. In an increasingly complex world, with more threats and potential problems being thrown at us every day, it is becoming harder and harder to mobilize sustained action through a “burning platform.” The burning platform approach creates anxiety, anger, guilt, and stress, which can crush complacency but can too quickly wear us out or result in a sort of frozen, deer-in-the-headlights, Survive Channel panic.

Studies of larger-than-life leaders (Lincoln, Matsushita, Mandela) give us many clues as to how change can be handled well today. The very best of these people created a broadly embraced sense of urgency around opportunity. They communicated widely and got people to buy into the concept of capitalizing on that opportunity. They won over hearts and minds with strategy and passion. They mobilized many to take aligned action against the various organizational and human barriers through relentless positive energy and talk of opportunity. They made sure wins came early and often and were broadcast and celebrated, helping refuel excitement. They were also sensitive to maintaining urgency and energy until work on initiatives was successfully completed.

It is now increasingly clear that these larger-than-life leaders avoided common pitfalls and mobilized action not just intermittently, not just once, but all the time, iteratively, often for years. Our most recent research is showing that's precisely what organizations need to do in a new era of speed, complexity, and uncertainty—similar actions taken not once a decade but continuously.

The net result of all this activity often astounds people. As a result, they may come to see these leaders as highly compelling, heroic, or charismatic. However, the causality often runs in a different direction. It is less that charisma mobilizes others to produce astounding results and more that Thrive-activating behavior (grounded in an understanding of human nature, modern organizations, and leading change) mobilizes people to produce outstanding results despite all the barriers. This accomplishment creates a perception that the “leader” is heroic and charismatic.

This last point is important because it helps explain why organizations without larger-than-life leaders—which is to say, almost all entities—can also produce astonishing results. They can use diverse teams that create a very similar process of mobilizing and leading others to achieve great change.

Research on leading change successfully today shows that teams drive broad-based action by behaving according to a set of guiding principles.

First, they hold themselves and others accountable to have-to tasks, but they also realize that a want-to, emotionally positive, almost volunteer attitude is essential in mobilizing people to go on a rapid-change journey. Second, they are rational and analytical, but they also win over hearts to get true buy-in, energized volunteerism, and that want-to positive attitude. Third, they are good at management and they develop and promote excellence in the planning, organizing, and controlling so central to modern organizations. But much more than is common today, they also encourage and support leadership from many people, not just from a few of their peers at the top of an organization. Fourth, they use small, highly select groups to attack certain change tasks. Yet they also heavily rely on the diverse many—a group big enough and with the breadth of information and contacts both to figure out what changes are needed and to execute them despite human nature and organizational barriers.

Together, these four points can be thought of as guiding principles associated with accelerating change in complex organizations. They help drive a momentum-building process of leadership that inspires buy-in and action, which creates more leadership, which overcomes more organizational and human barriers, which gets results, which creates more and more opportunity.

Because a management hierarchy can fight this process and is not designed to foster volunteerism, a want-to attitude, and leadership up and down the hierarchy, the most successful change teams now create a second system to facilitate the work, a system built not on formal hierarchy but on fluid networks.

That is, though modern enterprises are organized for good reasons by hierarchy, especially to create efficiency and reliability, change leadership teams also use fluid networks of people to tackle most of the big-change tasks. They create what we have called a “dual system.” Hierarchy and controls are central mechanisms to executing operating plans. Networks and leadership from the diverse many are at the core of driving strategic initiatives. This dual system is critical in reinforcing, sustaining, and embedding business outcomes and new ways of working associated with a successful change effort. We will have more to say about this later.