FORGET CHANGE. WELCOME EVOLUTION.

I believe Change Management is one of the most interesting themes that involve human behavior, just conceiving the idea of being able to administrate collective variation of beliefs, behavior and emotions is nothing but fascinating.

It is even more fascinating when statistics show that more than 80% of change management initiatives do not work. Having the clarity that it generally does not work, my new question is if such a science even exists or if it is a solution unable to address the problem at hand.

Does such a science even exists or is it a solution unable to address the problem at hand?

A SCIENCE WITH A LOT OF QUOTES AND LITTLE RESULTS

From the inmortal Heraclitus of Efesus, who defined the constant change of everything: “you never bathe twice in the same river”, to Socrates who invited us to use all of energy in building the new, to Einstein who measured intelligence in the ability to change; lack of change and adaptation has been always a synonym of the end.

And we must say things do change, the world as we know it has and each of us also. But to what extent is it just the consequence of the inevitable rather than a consequence of a designed process?

In my several years as an M&A lawyer we would always build plans that included a big chapter on change management. We worked hard on closing the deal and then moved to the next transaction leaving change to work it’s own way.

Plans were left unstarted, unended for the sake of immediate revenue. Change did not come from management; it was the power of humanity that ends up creating change; one that was different to what was in slides and flowcharts.

Is then the Change Management practice a defeated task? Do we need to accept that people change because they have to, rather than because we manage them to do so? Further more, do these two questions exclude each other?

Change did not come from management; it was the power of humanity that ends up creating change; one that was different to what was in slides and flowcharts.

The overarching question is if change management should disappear as a failed practice or simply change its focus. Situations like the Great Depression, the Russian Revolution and the current pandemic have taken humankind to accept the change basically because there is no other choice. All of these events generated new tools and survival abilities: they generated true change.

So is it more about bringing conscience about these mutations and building a toolkit? Is change management not really about change but about evolution?

THE UNWILLING CHANGE 

It makes no sense to state that change is not needed; it would be denying humanity and its history. The question is if change comes from will, from imposition, systemically or just because there is just no other way. And the paradigm is if it ever comes by anticipated design that foresees change and develops such variation.

Strategies are neutral, they don’t fail by themselves, they have just not delivered the willingness, the tipping point. We have been unsuccessful in selling the need for change change, and even much less in our capability to predict it, except when there is no option.

On systemic change, I have been fascinated by the work of Aaron Dignan and his words around responsive organizations. He explains, through real cases, how societies, communities and organizations can be systematically built for change. His compelling evidence on the behavior of ants and the human immune system shows how some are designed for permanent change based on their ability to immediate response.

A different, but similarly structured view is brought in the work of Sinek. Of course we need to quote the “start with why” to build the reasons and motivations for change but it is much more interesting to see it through his latest work “The Infinite Game” that clearly states never ending processes and development that also systemically require that need for change en evolution, never ending.

Having said that, I believe that the real change only happens when there is no other option: the unwilling change. This would define — for the sake of use of common phrases — that change really sparks when you are in a bicycle, and the bicycle is on fire, and you are on fire, and everything else is on fire: the will for change is inevitable. Now, do we really need to get to this stage?

Is then the Change Management practice a defeated task? Do people change because they have to, rather than because we manage them to do so?

The master of unwilling change is, without a doubt, Dr. Elizabeth Kübler Ross, who dedicated her life to the study of thanatology or the science of death. 

Death is such an overpowering event that mandates us to change, even if we do not want to. Dr. Kübler, through her master work on the stages of grief, teaches us how to change when there is no way back: we cannot bring back those who have parted.

Her work has been developed throughly in organizational science as a complete system for change management. It starts always with two phases: denial and anger. Again, the start is something that we cannot avoid: the cause for change does not come from will, however it does imply the conscientious decision of embarking in a painful journey.

This allows us to conclude, that real change is an evolutive process. The unwilling element is really the trigger, but the magic starts when that seed of unwillingness grows into a genuine desire (or need) to evolve.

SOWING THE NEED FOR CHANGE

As natural as it may be, we all hate change. Studies in infant psychology show that children before the age of 5 are constantly subject to change but they really hate it. They undergo it just because they have to. 

And let me provide a very simple example: if any of you are close to children you may ask yourselves why an infant can see that same movie hundreds of times and not get bored. When you try and introduce another film they will normally react negatively and want to return to the same old one. Why? Because they thrive for stability, because they feel comfort and security in knowing what will happen next. It is their stronghold.

Ontology (the study of the being) has found that self awareness and driving patients to a “breaking point” of realization generates the need for change to the extent that staying as they are becomes unviable.

When people, organizations, communities and systems are not intrinsically designed for change it can only be achieved through reaching a breaking point (or tipping point in the work of Malcolm Gladwell) that creates two things: total awareness of the situation and an unrelenting need for change. This is the seed that needs sowing, the moment where change becomes inevitable and will to transform comes in.

When responsiveness and adaptation is not systemic — and it generally isn’t — leaders need to plant that seed, take their organizations or communities to that breaking point and generate an inevitable will for change. 

If this does not happen — and back to quotes — there is no need to fix what ain’t broken.

EVOLUTION STEWARDSHIP: THE PATH BEYOND THE AFTERMATH 

Except for overpowered prophets, fortune tellers, time travellers and the odd politicians, none of had predicted what this “Year of the Rat” had in store for us. 

This Chinese New Year predicted for the general population a year that quite challenging, especially health-wise, but also financially, with obstacles, impediments, and unpredictable situations, which will mainly occur during the first half of the year. This however did not ignite change in 2020, because optimism overrides negative visions.

Now back to business. 

The 2020 events led to an interesting pattern worth revising: the world was NOT prepared for this type of change and we naturally stood in denial for some months. Then a reaction — not a solution — came between February and March: the lockdown. We really never though it would be this long, we were in denial.

And then, because of an inevitable fact that did not come at will, the world took a systemic approach and worked in a way where the change was embedded. Naturally in many shades, intensity and colors, but ir was there: the need for change, the awareness brought by chance and not by choice.

The big question is how do we use what we have learned and build the future without need to unlearn what we knew in February. This is where we stop talking about change management and really come in to the concept of Evolution Stewardship, which is more about ensuring that seed (need or will to evolve) and draw the path forward based in current learnings, only adding method and management principles.

This may sound as a purely semantic discussion. It is not, if you would ask people — and please do— if they would like to change or to evolve they would choose the latter. And the reason is simple: we want to adapt and keep what we have, rather than scrapping it all out. Evolution is comfortable because you validate the person, in change you prevail the organization.

My take on it is based on 10 principles that I dare to suggest, while it could be applied to many cases, I’ll use the current CV19 pandemic as a generic example.

1. DON’T UNLEARN; MAKE THE NEW ACCRETIVE: Flexible work is here to stay, but we arrived to it unplanned. Now we need to use the capability and learning we have to leverage a normal flexible environment knowing how fixed ones work and having lived through the extreme distancing we know where we want or can stand.
2. DESIGN AN EVOLUTION OR DESIRED STATE: The changes in behavior and culture will not reverse through a vaccine, so it’s time to our design our wished end state and build on it. People love targets, think of dreams but sell attainable goals: show that it possible
3. ENGAGE INDIVIDUALS BEFORE GOING MASSIVE: you are probably not right and for sure not everyone is ready.Massive communication has shown its limitations, we need to work on more personalized interactions to build and communicate plans.
4. THRIVE FOR RESPONSIVENESS: Virtual connection brought a sense of equality: any one in a virtual room can talk and interrupt. This has blurred hierarchies and allow us to build a flatter and more responsive organization. Create simple stimulus to understand the ability to evolve. Try a lot and fail a lot: it is better to fail in a simple intervention than in a whole plan.
5. IDENTIFY THOSE TEN PERCENT: Leadership was shifted to those who know, not to ones who were higher up in the pyramid. But power is in those who know and want. Find those and empower them, let them know the reasons, the end state and the secrets. Those 10% are your channels that will operate wall to wall rather than top down. On the other hand identify those 10%!of blockers: move them away or out: never shy always bold.
6. ENSURE IT CAN BE DONE: Human, physical interaction cannot be avoided and on the contrary it has to be nourished. If the status quo is inviable, we need to plan the viable . Again show a simple end state and sofisticaste from there, we all give up easily on what we deem impossible.
7. LEVERAGE ON PEOPLE BUT FOCUS ON THE BUSINESS: Focus shifted to people, this move of the pendulum is exciting snd brings hope. However we have disconnected from business and that could be a disaster, keep everyone within the business environment.
8. TAKE BOTH, BUT PREFER EFFECTIVE THAN PRODUCTIVE: Some say productivity has grown, but at the expense of endless hours. We need to come back to an effective productivity. Evolution needs to be effective, work on productive later.
9. EMBED DIVERSITY: Under the current working platform we have advanced years in diversity, inclusion and digitalization. We need to ensure that we keep this and foster it even more. Remember, not everybody thinks or evolves the same, so there is never a one size fits all.
10. FOCUS ON PURPOSE: And last, because it is perhaps the most important: we need emotions back, passion, convergence, purpose and collective spirit. This is a loss that we cannot afford.

SO? 

We are in front of another way of seeing the truth behind the mutation of human behavior. 

When will be an unwilling change the plan and design will not be an option. But part of the plan is to execute it.

Otherwise we will tend to normality as we know it, and forget what we learned just out of comfort.

When the variation task involves will, we need to push to sow that seed: collective designed plans, viable snd exciting. Everyone wants to know when and how... and that is about data not dates. Make evolution so exciting that it does not require will, it is self explanatory.

What is unavoidable is to embrace the possibility of something different. There is no such thing as a “new normality”, probably the most cliche of all recent phrases: something we refer to and have no idea of what it is.

This is the time of an evolved normality, a blend of what we have and what we have learned. A new step to define work, leadership and purpose. It’s there, served in front of us.

Let’s take what we are and have learned. No need to blow it up and start something new, let’s evolve it and become better, based on what we know, not on having to unlearn and learn: this is not natural to humanity. Evolution is.

SURPLUS: And now for the culture experts. How do we use this opportunity to ignite the culture we have seemed for years? No time to lose. Corporate and community leaders of the world, you should already be hungry not to lose this unique chance in life. So as Lumiére would say: “Please relax, pull up a chair as the dining room proudly presents - your dinner!” (Or the more sophisticated original: “S’il vous pla?t relaxez vous, asseyez-vous, pendant que la salle à manger vous présente fièrement : votre d?ner”)