Volume 1, Issue 5
Welcome back to the Red Tulip Press! It’s time for your weekly installment of “Five Things to Know!”
Here are this week’s topics:
TOPIC ONE: THE BRIDGES TRANSITION MODEL
Last week, we took a trip back to the very origins of the change management field with an exploration of Kurt Lewin’s three-phase model of change, a foundational and, at the time, revolutionary approach to thinking about organizational change that can be found at the heart of nearly all subsequent change models. This week, I thought we’d take a look at another three-phased approach to organizational change - the Bridges Transition Model, developed by William Bridges (1933-2013), a literature professor turned preeminent advisor on organizational transition management. Bridges authored several well-known books centered around his three-phase approach, including Transitions: Making Sense of Life’s Changes and Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change.
The Explanation
As we explore each of the phases of the Bridges model, our aim will not be to directly compare these to Lewin’s three phases of Unfreeze/Change/Refreeze; however, it’s almost impossible not to be aware of some of the underlying similarities of these models and where Lewin’s influence is evident in Bridges’ thinking. Nevertheless, we’ll do our best to outline the model on its own before drawing any conclusions.
One key distinction to make before we dive is Bridges’ view of change versus transition. Bridges defines “change” an external force - ?an event or situation that causes some kind of disruption to the current state or status quo. He describes “transition,” on the other hand, as the individual, internal psychological process that people go through to move from a disrupted current state to a new future state. Therefore, when Bridges talks about the three phases of “transition,” he is speaking about the individual change journey. Let’s now look at each stage in more detail.
Stage 1: Ending, Losing, and Letting Go
Typically, this stage begins when people first hear about a change that will impact them. At this stage a range of emotions and reactions can occur, all of which are perfectly normal - for example denial, fear, anger, or sadness. Even when the change is perceived as having a positive impact, there may still be a sense of loss for the past. To successfully navigate through this stage, people must be given the space to experience whatever feelings may surface. In the organizational context, this stage is when managers play a pivotal role by acknowledging employees’ feelings without judgment, clarifying key messages behind the “why” of the change, and maintaining open lines of communication. By the end of this stage, people moving through a transition should have a clearer idea of what will be changing, what will be left behind, and what the next steps are to move toward the new future state.
Stage 2: The Neutral Zone
During this “in-between” phase, the old system or way of being is going away or has gone away, but the new system or way of operating is not yet fully in place. People in this stage of transition may feel confused, overwhelmed, resistant, or skeptical that the change will succeed. On the flip side, though, this stage is also the time when people begin to reorient and realign their thoughts and behaviors, taking small steps toward embracing the future state. By encouraging experimentation and co-creation of new ways of working, seeking regular feedback, and celebrating early wins, leaders and managers in an organization can help make this stage feel less uncertain.
Stage 3: The New Beginning
This stage is marked by a sudden surge in energy as people begin to embrace and commit to the new future state. People often become more open to learning as they actively seek to deepen their understanding of the new world, which in turn helps solidify the attitudes, mindsets, and behaviors that they will need to operate successfully in the future state. Organizational leaders should at this stage reinforce and celebrate the hard work that has gone into navigating the change and invest resources toward making the change stick for the long term.
The Synthesis
As we acknowledged earlier, this model has clear similarities to Lewin’s three-phase model of organizational change; the key differentiator of the Bridges model, however, its is crucial acknowledge of change as a messy process. While the second “Change” stage of Lewin’s model is focused around the activity and process of change itself, the Bridges model views this middle stage as one that’s lower in energy, often confusing, and often quite difficult. Bridges does nothing to sugarcoat the messiness and chaos of change; rather, he encourages us to lean into it, plunging into the churn and exploring and experimenting until we uncover the trail that will ultimately lead us toward successful and stable future state.
Another notable aspect of Bridges’ model is its hyperfocus on the individual change process. Individual change is, of course, at the heart of all organizational change, and is also the basis for the ADKAR model which we’ve discussed previously. While there are steps that organizational leaders and managers can take at each stage to help people move through their individual transitions, the model in itself doesn’t provide a clear set of steps for change at the organizational level. However, Bridges has supplemented the model with guidelines on “transition management” including the importance of assessing readiness, communicating a clear “why” for change, and monitoring organizational progress through change.
Finally, it’s important to note that this model may not resonate with all changes for all people. By framing the individual process in terms of three different and distinctive phases, there is a risk of oversimplifying the complexity of individual change and transition. The three phases may also not occur linearly, or may shift and reverse as time goes on. Many writers on the subject stress the importance of leveraging other change management frameworks alongside the Bridges transition model for a more complete view of organizational change management.
The Nutshell
The Bridges three-phase model opens a window for us to explore the ways in which we as individuals, the individuals we work with, and organizations collectively experience the process of change. By acknowledging the “transition” inherent in change and its associated ambiguity and uncertainty, the model creates space for individuals to safely experience and navigate through the myriad of emotions that can accompany change, encouraging small but deliberate steps toward a new future.
Further Reading
TOPIC TWO: OBJECTIVES AND KEY RESULTS (OKRs)
Let’s turn now to a goal-setting framework you may be intimately familiar with (if your organization utilizes this approach) or be entirely new to. First pioneered by famed Intel leader Andy Grove in the 1980s, Objectives and Key Results (OKRs for short) gained wider notice when one of Grove’s former employees, John Doerr, introduced them to Google in the late 90s. Google has since credited OKRs as a key contributor to their astronomical growth and success and. Although the practice of OKRs has waxed and waned in popularity over time, the concept enjoyed renewed attention with the publication of Doerr’s 2018 book, Measure What Matters. Let’s take a closer look at the OKR framework as outlined in this book.
The Explanation
Doerr defines OKRs as “a management methodology that helps to ensure that the company focuses efforts on the same important issues throughout the organization.” OKRs are designed to create alignment and transparency about the organization’s direction and goals while also providing a clear roadmap of how they will be achieved.
Definitions
Objectives define the “what” of the goal. Goals are often long-term and aspirational in nature, but Doerr cautions that they should also be concrete and action-oriented.
Key results determine “how” the organization reaches the objective. They typically follow a “SMART” framework (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound) with a critical focus being on the measurability and verifiability of the result.
OKR “Superpowers”
Doerr describes four “superpowers” to enable success with OKRs in an organization:
1) Focus and Commit to Priorities: Just as important as the “what” and “how,” leaders must communicate a clear “why” behind the objectives they are choosing to focus on and communicate it clearly. Maintaining an OKR system effectively also requires commitment from every employee, not just in crafting good OKRs to start, but in revisiting, measuring, and adjusting them, either on an ad-hoc or regular basis.
2) Align and Connect for Teamwork: While OKRs can be fairly easily cascading from the top down in an organization, Doerr warns against operating exclusively in this vein. Rather, the creation of “bottom-up” OKRs originating from any point in the organizational hierarchy should be encouraged to take advantage of the organization’s capacity for innovation. He also emphasizes the importance of cross-functional connection, noting that the inherent transparency of OKRs can be valuable in breaking through departmental silos and stimulating collaboration.
3) Track for Accountability: Not only should the OKRs themselves be regularly examined to make sure they meet the needs of the organization, but the results they are seeking to generate must be diligently and regularly captured. Doerr recommends creating a scoring system to determine whether an existing OKR should be continued, updated, or stopped. Scoring can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of each key result toward meeting the objective.
领英推荐
4) Stretch for Amazing: Doerr recommends having some OKRs labeled as “committed” and others labeled as “aspirational” to help drive inspiration and motivation.
OKR Best Practices
In addition to outlining the core “superpowers,” Doerr also highlights a number of correlating practices that may help organizations achieve success with OKRs. He suggests:
The Synthesis
It seems that many people have strong opinions about the advantages and disadvantages of implementing OKRs as a framework for organizational management, but I am objectively neutral on OKRs. It’s a concept that seems to work incredibly well for some organizations, but is not a one-size-fits-all approach either. The success or failure of OKRs is entirely dependent upon the organization’s culture, leadership, and dedication to implementing OKRs with consistency. Think back to last week’s exploration of Gareth Morgan’s metaphors of organization: a machine-like organization, wedded to strict hierarchies of power and formal authority, may struggle to break free from rigid top-down cascading of OKRs, negating their power to connect people from all directions; alternatively, a flux-and-transformation type organization may find the framework too limiting or constricting in a rapidly changing internal and external environment. OKRs must fit both the current and long-term needs of the organization to be effective.
When done well, however, OKRs can function effectively in an agile environment. We touched on the Agile values a couple of weeks ago and it’s a topic we’ll explore further as time goes on. In terms of the OKR connection, however, there is a clear linkage between OKRs as a management tool for creating alignment and transparency throughout an organization and similar tenets of agile operations; in fact, OKRs are considered a compatible tool with the Scaled Agile Framework. The regular cadence of review or “calibration” stated as an OKR best practice aligns well with the planning cadence typically seen in an agile environment. Similarly, the specificity and measurability of key results create the optimal conditions for ensuring value is delivered to customers.
Finally, it’s worth noting that while OKRs are a popular framework and in use by a number of successful organization (Google being the most famous example), there are a number of alternatives to OKRs worth considering, including SMART goals and Balanced Scorecards, all of which are frameworks that may be worthy of exploration in future editions. Again, the crucial decision that leaders must make when evaluating management and goal-setting frameworks like OKRs is whether they best serve the organization’s strategic vision and align with its highest purpose.
The Nutshell
The OKR methodology is a management and goal-setting technique that has proven effective at a number of leading organizations in creating alignment, fostering transparency, and stimulating innovation. When implemented well, OKRs have the potential to drive growth, maximize efficiency, and encourage collaboration. However, OKRs require regular evaluation and calibration to be effective, and any organization consideration implementing an OKR system must carefully consider whether the framework meets the organization’s current and future needs along with its mission, values, and vision.
Further Reading
TOPIC THREE: SWOT ANALYSIS
I bet you’ve heard of SWOT analysis, but I also bet you couldn’t name the person who invented it. I wanted to do a brief review of this tried-and-true analysis technique, but also keep things interesting with a bit of history. Let’s start with a quick review of SWOT as it stands today, then we’ll dig into its origins.
SWOT is a tool often used in the context of strategic planning. The four components of SWOT are:
SWOT is so ubiquitous that you may not be surprised to hear it’s been around since the 1960s. It was developed by Robert Franklin Stewart (1911-1972), who headed up the Theory and Practice of Planning team at the Stanford Research Institute. His work with this group centered around studying corporate planning principles and developing contemporary approaches to strategic planning. From this work came the original SWOT analysis, known then as SOFT. The SOFT methodology consisted of the following elements:
Overtime, this SOFT approach evolved into the SWOT version we know so well today. The question is whether SWOT is still relevant today. There are mixed opinions on this and, like any tool, it only works well if it fits the needs of the organization. Some organizations may still derive great benefits from SWOT, while others may find greater value in alternatives approaches like scenario planning, design thinking, or a combination of approaches. After learning more about I personally the SOFT approach; it feels a bit less formulaic than SWOT, and perhaps posing it as an alternative to the standard SWOT could inject some refreshed energy into a strategic planning session. If you’re interested in learning more about the SOFT method and its evolution, then I would definitely encourage you to check out the first linked resource below for a deep dive!
Further Reading
TOPIC FOUR: DETERMINANTS OF DEMAND
If anyone is still reading at this point, let’s continue with what is apparently becoming a series on reviewing basic concepts of economics. I’m at least finding this helpful, so if it’s helpful for you too, even better. This week we’ll look at the determinants of demand. These are the factors, other than price, that influence the demand for goods and services in the marketplace. There are five main determinants, which we’ll go through below.
Further Reading
TOPIC FIVE: INVOLVE.ME
To be perfectly clear, this not an advertisement in any way and I don’t receive any payment for any part of RTP. This is me sharing a product that I’ve tried and liked. Involve.me is a platform that allows you to create customized webforms and surveys. They offer a surprising amount of features in the free version, such as the ability to map survey answers to specific outcomes and basic analytics on responses received. Certainly a great alternative to the rather basic Microsoft Forms if you’re looking to uplevel your next form or survey!