15 no’s, and 15 yes’s of the Adizes method

It can be surprising to learn how misconceptions have taken root. Or how things that seem obvious perhaps are not so obvious. I was reading a university management course book that mentions the Adizes method, and of all the things they could have mentioned were that participants are allowed to be late to sessions. Firstly, that is not correct since it compromises mutual respect, and secondly, how did it occur to someone that this was such an important principle that it should be referred to in general terms? Adizes’ books on management styles and life cycles are taught from many universities around the world. Still, unfortunately, there are misconceptions about the practical steps required to help organizations reach Prime. The various concepts such as PAEI, CAPI, and life cycles are a theoretical foundation for a comprehensive, structured, phased, practical system for organizational change. I remember a seminar where the process of change in a company was being explained, and in the end, one man asked – but do you come to companies to help us? Whether the problem is a misunderstanding, lack of information, lack of clarity, or something else, it has been our challenge to explain what the Adizes method is and what it is not for 25 years. For example, one of our key doctrines is that we do not copy solutions but rather apply certain principles. Solutions are unique for every organization. You cannot take a “monkey sees; monkey does” approach. That is why I have tried to apply the PAEI questions to get the best possible answers:

• E – Why is the method applied, and why not?
• P – What is the method, and what is it not?
• A – How is the method applied, and how not?
• E – When is the method applied, and when not?
• I – Who applies the method, and who does not?

E – Why?

Not problem-solving but providing the tools to solve your own problems. We do not try to be experts in all areas, trying to advise how things ought to be done. Still, rather we work with people from the organization, using their knowledge to create solutions together while training them to resolve their own problems in the future successfully. This is the only way to ensure that the results will be visible in the long term.

• What is given on a plate is not properly appreciated; it is the old conundrum – whether to give a fish or teach a person to catch fish.

Not changing people but changing the system. Many companies have experienced bringing in successful managers who could not perform in their new environment simply because the system (if you could call it that) was either too chaotic or too bureaucratic to provide a basis for successfully integrating these people. We believe that it is of paramount importance that a system is created into which capable individuals can integrate, rather than to focus on fantastic, brilliant individuals who can improvise.

• If you put the best pilot in a submarine, the submarine won’t fly.

A proactive, not reactive attitude towards creating the future of the company. An organization is weak when it is surprised by events in the market, when it is surprised by moves made by the competition, by new products, and so on. In working together, the key people in the organization need always to be looking forward and creating changes and adapting to others. The more entrepreneurial spirit they have – the more creativity and willingness to take risks – the more successful they will be. These decisions are a foundation for creating and changing the organization's system, without which there can be no success in the market.

• We cannot wait for luck to strike us out of the blue.

P – What?

Not reorganization but organizational transformation. The idea of reorganization has a bad rap, and in dictionaries, you will find sentences like, “introducing new organization often brings with it major, drastic change.” When do people want to change the organization? Only when they need to overcome certain problems and/or support the development of the organization. The concept of organizational transformation entails a collection of actions implemented step-by-step, which apart from change or adaptation of the organizational structure involve creating a shared mission and values for the company, a system of accountability, a reward system, and a clearly defined decision-making process at all levels.

• Not revolution, but evolution, supported by all the necessary tools.

Not just external, monetary rewards, but internal rewards too. When talking about rewards, people almost always think of financial incentives. Of course, these need to be set out, but far more important are those rewards that cost almost nothing but take effort, nonetheless. We do not motivate people; rather, we create an environment in which they will be self-motivated. Doing the job you love, growing, solving problems, enjoying a healthy corporate climate, being given opportunities – these are all things that are worth much more than money.

• No amount of money can make up for going to a job you hate every day.

Not asking someone about everything but being able to decide things too. It makes sense that if someone is called a manager, then they can decide things. It makes sense that even someone at the bottom of the hierarchy has the ability to make some decisions. However, sense does not always prevail. The authority is the right to say both yes and no. The power to refuse everything is not authority. If someone is accountable for something, then they should be able to say both yes and no.

• The more responsible people there are who are sleeping an hour less and caring for the company, the better it will be.

A – How?

Not centralization but decentralization. A profit center is when someone can answer how the business is going, broken down by client groups, products, regions, and so on. In the absence of this, just one person answered that question – the CEO, based on the P&L and balance sheet. We were involved in changing the organization with 27,000 people, so imagine the problem you get when just one person is accountable. Profit centers are a nursery for new CEOs because they should start making decisions and being accountable. Delegating is, “I tell you what to do, and you decide how.” Decentralization is, “You decide both what and how, and I monitor things based on our objectives and budget.” In this way, we create a system based on a portfolio of profit centers, and we distribute the risk.

• We don’t put all our eggs in one basket.
• I don’t have to have an opinion on everything.

Not cost-cutting but increasing revenue. There is often the perception that cost-cutting and reorganization, if not synonymous, are very similar concepts. If the financial plans for each organizational unit make it possible to analyze expenses and to know whose job it is to worry about them, then we won’t get into a situation where we must carry out huge cost-cutting measures. Simultaneously, the profit centers approach makes it possible for many more people to work towards increasing revenue. So, controlling expenses, but focusing on increasing revenue, makes the biggest difference.

• Needing to make 10,000 people redundant isn’t business; it’s belated accounting.

Not destructive but constructive conflict. Putting the problems on the table, and doing so constantly, is key to progress in any area. That is where problem-solving, together with constructive conflict, makes a vital contribution. Fighting is one thing we are very good at in this part of the world. A climate of mutual trust and respect is critical for the success of any organization. Democracy in making decisions, but dictatorship in implementing them, that’s what makes the difference.

• If you are constitutionally weak, every little breeze will give you pneumonia.

E – When?

Not as a one-off, but on an ongoing basis. To lose weight, it’s not enough to make an effort for a month or two. It’s the same with organizations – changing the organizational climate is not just an order to be followed. Imagine people saying that there isn’t enough cooperation between departments, and the CEO coming along and ordering people to cooperate more. What do you think of that solution? Some there might say, “Well, why didn’t you say that two weeks ago? We would have had things fixed by now.” A problem like that can only be solved with ongoing effort to address the problems between departments, and not through unrealistic orders.

• A diet has to be a change of lifestyle – you have to start liking salad.

Not as quickly as possible, but as and when the organization can take it. People always want everything quickly, with a minimum of effort, as soon as possible. The simple question is, how much change can the organization take? You lift weights by starting light and building up to the heavier ones – you don’t start with 200kg. Too many changes can be impracticable because, for example, of a lack of capacity. Some things need to await their time because it’s not about how much has been written down; it’s about how much gets applied.

• Newton’s Third Law applies in the social sciences, too – action is equal to reaction.

Not always, but only when the stage reached in the life cycles permits it. There are different problems at different stages of the life cycle. Different resources and know-how. Failure to understand the stage of the life cycle can mean the wrong medication being administered. Organizations in the Early Bureaucracy stage buy equipment to more effectively measure when people are coming in and out of the company. Will that bring profit? Of course not. Instead of flexibility, new products, and new markets, they ramp up the controls system and then wonder why things are only getting worse.

• We don’t give the same medicine to our child and grandma.

I – Who?

Not brilliant individuals, but a creative team. Nobody can be both effective and efficient, both short-term and long (PAEI). Many want great leaders who will solve all the problems with a magic pill, but although it’s a nice thought, we all know it doesn’t work like that. Nobody can do it all on their own, so art is how to get people working together on their problems and their future. It might be possible to an extent in the early days, but once the organization has grown, it will outgrow its founder as a rule. Then individual entrepreneurship needs to give way to team entrepreneurship.

• The ideal manager, with all the PAEI characteristics, of course, does not exist, but if he did, he would have quite a headache.

Not just the top management team, but as many people as possible in the organization. The best ideas come from below when people can address their own problems. And if they manage to resolve them, it is one of the best sources of motivation. The lower the level we can bring the creative problem-solving process to, the more people there will be thinking about improving the organization.

• Leaving the towel on the floor if you want it changed – it wasn’t the CEO who came up with that.

Not consultants, but organizational therapists. We do not consider ourselves consultants who come in with ready solutions and reports. Our business is change – successful change. Change is based on diagnosis and the desire to grow. Change is not easy in organizations, but change should never be more important to us than the organization itself and its people. If that were to happen, it wouldn’t be organizational therapy; it would be professional misconduct. In this kind of therapy, you should never fear you will lose your client, but you also need to do everything to ensure that the client does not rely on you for years to come.

• The alcoholic must admit he is an alcoholic if he wants to change.
• If you are doing professional work, you don’t “play games,” and when things are tough, Our Lady of Guadalupe will help the changes happen.

Reading back over these questions and answers, I realize that these are healthy principles for introducing change into any organization. I could have tried to describe the 11 stages of the Adizes method, but I felt that managers could get a better feel for it this way. Are these 15 no’s and 15 yes’s of the Adizes method enough to understand it fully? Of course, there may be more questions, but I hope that some key answers have been provided. If any questions have been left unanswered, then feel free to send them in, and we can write more 15 no’s and 15 yes’s articles. To finish with, I suggest you read the concluding sentences – the bullet points after every question – and you will pretty much have the Adizes method, the unscientific but common-sense version, the one with a “soul.”