The Limitations of Linear Thinking in Organizational Change

CONTEXT

Let’s set the context with a quick thought experiment.

Imagine that it’s a Friday afternoon and you receive an email from your boss.

The email states that because the COVID-19 pandemic has subsided, the organization has decided to revoke all pandemic-inspired remote work policies and all employees are expected to return to their pre-pandemic work arrangements within 30 days.

How does that email make you feel?

Look at the image below and mentally circle your immediate reaction to the email. Don’t think about it too hard, just go with your gut feeling.

This is the “Emoji Game”—an exercise that I have conducted in the?Lean Change Agent workshop?many dozens of times, and every time I do, the result is the same - there is a wide range of reactions.

The image above with the red dots shows the results from participants?voting on their reaction?to the scenario?in a recent workshop.

Are you surprised at the range of reactions?

THE BIG IDEA?

Organizational change is not a linear process.

Organizations often view change as a well-engineered process that can be carefully managed by following a linear process?to move the organization from A to B.

This thinking reflects the 20th century view of the organization as a machine operating in a stable?environment.

Inherent in the machine analogy is the assumption that its people are cogs in the machine that can be rearranged and shaped at will to fit the desired future state.

This philosophy has given rise to many of today’s popular linear change models that represent a simplistic view of change?as a series of discrete, orderly steps.

Linearity assumes that each phase of change follows the previous one in a predictable fashion and that the process can be managed by moving directly from one stage to the next without much iteration or feedback.

Linearity may have made sense 100 years ago when an organization's internal and external environment was stable.

However, in today’s complex organization where everything and everyone inside and outside its walls is interconnected and where information is free-flowing and almost instantaneous, applying linear thinking to organizational change is nonsensical.

Today’s organizations are not stable, static entities—they are complex adaptive systems (CAS) which are continuously in motion.

Looking at linearity through the lens of a CAS reveals the fallacy of linear thinking in an organizational change context. ?

People are Non-Linear

The first characteristic of a CAS is that it contains numerous diverse individuals (employees) each of whom has autonomy over how they behave.

The obvious limitation of applying linear thinking to organizational change is that change is about people and people themselves are inherently non-linear.

Change management involves guiding people through new ways of working, which can trigger a range of emotional responses. ?

"One of the great myths in organizational change is that everyone needs a high level of awareness of the change as a prerequisite to support it."

As the Emoji Game example demonstrates, people’s reactions to change are as unique as they are. We all filter information through the lens of our life experience and draw different conclusions.

These emotional responses can vary widely across an organization, leading to unpredictable outcomes at different stages of the change process.

Linear individual models of change prescribe sequential steps that should be achieved for effective change. According to these models, individuals typically won’t have the?desire?to support change if they are not first?aware?of why change is necessary.

The thought experiment you performed at the beginning of this article reveals flaws in this linear thinking. Some people skip the need for?awareness?of the reasons for the change and have the?desire?to support it immediately.

One of the great myths in organizational change is that everyone needs a high level of?awareness?of the change as a prerequisite to support it.

The reality is that for a variety of complex and unknowable reasons - from personal experiences and preferences to high trust in leadership - many people don’t require a high level of?awareness?of the change in order to be able to support it.

It turns out that people simply refuse to be squeezed into nice linear change models. ?

Systems of People are Non-Linear

The second characteristic of a CAS is that everyone interacts with each other in ways that are not fully understood.

One of the confounding aspects of a CAS is that acting in the space changes the space.

This means that once an action is taken by the change agent—be it as simple as an email or as complicated as a co-creation workshop—ripple effects are generated in the system.

What happens when unique individuals with unique perspectives interact to discuss the change, and share their concerns, hopes, and fears?

The reality is that a CAS displays non-linear behaviour, meaning that the output of even a seemingly inconsequential action or intervention can be disproportionate to the input of the action itself.

A chance conversation between executives overheard in the hallway is enough to spark a widespread revolt against change.

Linear thinking assumes that an action taken in one place will have a predictable, cause-and-effect reaction in another place. ?

"One of the confounding aspects of a CAS is that acting in the space changes the space."?

If that were the case, every change plan would work as designed every time and change would be easy.

The reality is that due to the interconnected nature of a CAS, the impact of the ripple effects of change are widespread and unknowable in advance.

The insights alone are enough to dispel the myth of linearity in organizational change. ?

Emergence

The third characteristic of a CAS is that the interactions between people result in emergent behaviour—where the system of people displays behaviour that can’t be described by the individual people themselves.

In a CAS, outcomes often happen for no apparent reason. You simply cannot plan for this in advance.

As I wrote in a?previous article?about emergence, even if most individuals seem to support the change, emergent outcomes can derail the change.

Linear change models traditionally follow a predetermined path with clear steps and expected outcomes.

However, emergence highlights that in complex environments, new properties and behaviours can arise that are not predictable from the initial conditions alone.

This unpredictability can disrupt the expected linear progression of a change initiative. ?

LESSONS FOR MODERN CHANGE MANAGEMENT ?

Linear change models are not good execution models because they assume that the organization will remain static while the change is in-flight.

The complexity inherent in 21st century organizations demands a shift away from linear processes and predetermined plans, towards non-linear, adaptable, and responsive approaches to navigating change.

Here are three concrete actions that we teach in the?Lean Change Agent workshop: ?

Strategy and Execution are Intertwined

• Co-Create a north star strategy using a?Strategic Change Canvas?and then realign and adjust it as you execute and learn more.

Just-in-Time Planning

• Plan in shorter time horizons and smaller chunks.
• Build a?Minimum Viable Change Process?to keep everything progressing and achieve?Change Agility.

Execution

• Use a flow-based system of work to pull work based on value and circumstance.
• Choose the three most important experiments to run each week.

Thanks for reading!

Justin Balaski

Founder and Principal at IdeaLeap

Connect with me on LInkedIn

PUT IT INTO ACTION

Navigating complexity is at the heart of the Lean Change Agent workshop.

Learn how to apply these concepts in real life?here:?https://idealeap.com/lean-change