20 Myths of Change Management & 8 Ways to avoid them
It has been over a year since I posted my first Mythbuster on OCM. The series has always sought to challenge the way change practitioners think about change - afterall, if we cannot change our beliefs we can't change anything.
For me this gets to the heart of change management and where our beliefs come from. Some myths seem to be 'cognitive candy' - tricked by optical illusions of order such as Kotter's 8 Steps, the simplicty of ADKAR or the curves of Kubler Ross.
Others seem to be driven by quite a negative view of change such as our Brains Hating Change, Creating a Sense of Urgency or Perceptions of resistance
The main reason I hear for holding onto these Myths is that 'All models are wrong, but some are useful'. This seems to be used as an excuse to believe in any model because they are all wrong. But is this really a valid excuse for holding onto debunked ideas or claims? Science is not about the pursuit of 'truth' but the pursuit of knowledge. And knowledge is about trying to explain the world we live in. So the question is not can the model recreate reality but does it correctly answer the question it claims to answer.
If google maps only got you to where you wanted to go 15-20% of the time would you use it? So why use Kubler Ross ? And if a map was so simple and/or poorly defined you couldn't find your way anywhere it would be useless. So why use Malsow's Heirarchy, Learning Styles, MBTI or dare I say it Kotter and ADKAR?
So here is a quick guide to understanding whether the map you are buying is going to get you to where you want to go.
- Face vaildity is when 'on the face of it' a concept or claim seems to make sense. Like sugar, fat & salt in our food these concepts that are cognatively contagious - maybe like one of those simple pirates map with no points of reference just a wiggly dotted line leading to a cross marking where the treasure is hidden. Maslow's pyramid (we are all destined for some higher place), the Kubler Ross curve (things always get worse before they get better), to the order of Lewin's Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze (change is simply a chain of events). They are highly intuitive because they appeal to some deep believes we have (or would like to have) about our worlds making them difficult to drop.
- Construct redundancy occurs when a concept is 'old wine in new bottles'. For example, Emotional Intelligence = IQ + Conscientiousness + Emotional Stability. So as some people claim EQ cannot be more important than IQ when one is nested in the other. So creating new words for existing concepts potentially creates confusion and narrows our understanding. Like a new map that is no more helpful than the one you already have.
- Does the concept or claim rely on extra ordinary extrapolations? Does the research that underpins the concept come from a completely unrelated field such as prison camps or people dying as with the change curve? So be suspicious of anything with the word ‘neuro’ in front of it such as neurochange, neuroleadership, neurosuccess, neurocoaching, neuroentreprenuership etc. ‘Neuro’ may make them sound ‘sciency’ but the reality is that many of these claims are based on just a few studies which are not related to their application. Maybe like using a map of New York to navigate London.
- Concept reliablity - There are 43 different instruments for measuring change readiness of which 7 have reasonable levels of validity. Arguably the best of the best is for measuring individual readiness to change (Herscovitch and Meyer (2002)). But maybe we want to measure organisational rather than individual readiness in which case we could use Bouckenooghe, Devos, 2009. So, when we try to measure constructs, we really need to understand exactly what we are trying to measure and make sure we use the right tool to measure it. Maybe this is like using distance rather than height to measure your mountain ascent.
- Does the concept or claim suffer from data delusional? Does the analysis suffer from rigorous research, connecting the winning dots, causality v correlation delusions or halo effects? For example, PROSCI's claim that ‘effective OCM drives results and outcomes’ which can increase the likelihood of meeting objectives by as much as 6 times is not supported by their cross sectional data . This would be as fundamental as not knowing if a car was travelling towards us or we were travelling to the car, the former would require a completely different intervention that the latter. Causality is about direction of travel and if we don't get it right we literally don't know if we are coming or going!
- Predictive validity. If you are using MBTI to build high performing teams what evidence do you have that MBTI is a predictor of high performance? And if learning styles do not give us any insight into how people learn then why use them?
- Is the concept clear enough to be operationalised? Can the concept’s definition be pinned down to a relatively specific definition and measurement? If we are using generic surveys (like most engagement surveys) to potentially understand very specific problems then we end up knowing more about less leaving you with unactionable data. Maybe like using a road map on a hike - there wouldn't be enough detail to measure whether you are making progress or passing a specfic milestone.
- And last, but probably the issue that gets least attention is whether, even given everything above, the concept is ethical? When Daryl Conner (Managing at the Speed of Change p.98) suggests that ‘Orchestrating pain messages throughout an institution is the first step in developing organisational commitment to change’ or Kotter states organisations should ‘create a crisis’ (Kotter 2012) are these really ethical steps to organisational change?
You can read more about how to spot a dodgy concept here & here.
So evidence based OCM is about ensuring we have the right map (and tool kit) to navigate the terrain. And the first step is not to start with urgency or awareness but a clear understanding of what the terrain is.
My journey now is to put together an evidence based integrated change (EBIC?) framework that will hopefully help practitioners and organisations understand the terrain and find the best path.
But before I leave the myths I want to say how much I have appreciated everyone's likes and comments over the past year - they have kept me going.
So as a small parting gift here is the list...;)
Myth # 1 - Do our brains hate change?
Myth # 2 - Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze – Science or Fiction?
Myth # 3 - Is Creating a Sense of Urgency Critical for Change?
Myth # 4 - Change Curve - Doing More Harm Than Good
Myth # 5 - Resistance : A Barrier to Overcome?
Myth # 6 - Are you WIIFMe or WIFFUs?
Myth # 7 - Communication : 'The' key to change success?
Myth # 8 - OCM Failure Rates: If not 70% then what?
Myth # 9 - Intelligence : Which one - IQ or EQ?
Myth # 10 - Change Leadership : Transform, transact or serve?
Myth # 11 - Participation : Critical for change?
Myth # 12 - Inverted U : Law or Folklore?
Myth # 13 - Growth Mindset : Time to move on?
Myth # 14 - Learning Style : The ultimate zombie idea?
Myth #15 - Positivity Ratio : Can we measure emotions?
Myth #16 - MBTI : The Multi Million Dollar Myth?
Myth #17 - Good v Bad Stress : Don't Walk the Line
Myth #18 - Start with the Why or is it Want?
Myth #19 - Change Starts with the Individual - Truth or Truism?
Bridge Builder; Initiative Fielder; Business-centric, director-level advisor to business leaders and sponsors establishing project and change organizations. M&A Fractional Advisor from DD through IMO establishment.
1 年Thank you so much Alex Boulting, Chartered FCIPD. I always feel so reassured when I read your work I'm back on the market and, surprise, surprise, encountering many of these myths, as well as so many terms alige-ized or otherwise misused and misunderstood. Today's screening call featured the recruiter for a consulting firm asking if I had used "the" Target Operating Model, which their client uses. It seems like every interview I'm asked something that just doesn't make sense. I ask for clarification, but immediately realize that if the interviewer doesn't know what operating models are in the first place, I'm getting a red x on that question. Does anyone knows of a group or platform where we could share these challenges and develop ways to address the many pervasive myths, subject matter disconnects, and terminology misuses, we come across? If nothing exists, would anyone be interested in something like this, either as a participant, group admin/leader, or SME?
Culture Change Specialist: Helping Organisations Craft Strategy-Supportive Cultures by Aligning Their Leader's Behaviour.
2 年Terrific review Alex Boulting, Chartered FCIPD. As a consultant, and having worked with consultants for quarter of a century, it's a constant fascination and frustration how change agents resist changing their internal models and practices. My own experience has been to go through the real pain of 'unlearning' models and methods that I had become expert in - sunk cost bias. A mentor on this journey was Patrick Vermeren. His warm but direct style constantly challenged us to answer the question - 'where is the evidence?' Or more particularly, the peer reviewed articles, replication studies, and meta-analyses! This led to a major clean-out of our library. Out went the NLP, MBTI, Wilbur etc books, making room for more contemporary authors. And powerpoint slides ... I don't think we can overestimate these as a source of resistance to changing our practice... the Ikea bias, I build these, they are right! Looking forward to the foreshadowed book. Thanks.
GM/Strategic Change Consulting Practice Lead at The Advantage Group, Inc.
2 年Natasha Redman
More than 25 years of experience as a C-Level executive, Entrepreneur, Consultant and Executive Coach
2 年Marwa Farouq
INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANT. TRAINING that is RELEVANT and INTERESTING, ENGAGES the LEARNER. Working as Associate Trainer
2 年Thank you I look forward to the next series