Change myths

This HBR post attempts to evaluate Obama's record on change management, based on a four step model. I'm instinctively wary of models and this one strikes me as typically trite and questionable.

The first step is to "make the case for change", which seems to assume that change is some rational and intellectual process. I suppose being a business academic is going to make you think that's how the world works.

The second step is "Create a vision of what will be different" - another B School convention that sets us up for idealising the future and instead of getting grounded in the present. I concede that there seems to be a big market for grand visions, but if you want real change, they're quite likely to set you up for failure.

The third step is "Mobilize commitment to change". Ah the commitment word. Again, the idea is that we make a rational decision, commit to it, and lo it happens. I've been to way too many meetings where commitments are made to have much faith in this. I call them "commitment ceremonies" and I try hard to avoid them.

The fourth step is about creating early successes but I can't help feeling this is another set up to avoid really honest evaluation of changes and complexity in favour of a simplistic pursuit of things going to plan.

And I find this sign off pretty patronising:

Clearly, there's room for improvement in the President's change management approach. Let's hope that he learns from the experience of the first year and — like the best senior executives — gets better at managing change over time.

That word senior crops up all the time in consultant speak and it always puts me on guard. It feels like a status game. I'd call it elitist, if it wasn't such a mediocre tactic.

Hat tip: Dominic Campbell

An approach to wicked problems

Matt Moore has posted a short and succinct paper about approaches to wicked problems. In my experience, lots of these problems get treated as if they are merely complicated and just need a solution from some (dubiously-qualified) expert. Here in the UK our politicians seem unable to resist responding to complexity other than by pandering to some celebrity expert: such as Alan Sugar on enterprise, James Dyson on innovation, and a countless number of Lords on a variety of other topics. They almost always come back with egotistical, opinionated, headline-grabbing "solutions" that fail almost comically to grasp the ambiguities and complexities of the issues at hand.

Matt's paper succeeds in outlining an alternative that is more sophisticated, without making it sound painfully difficult. (It's no surprise that he wasn't able to sell it to his government.)

A couple of interesting posts...

Rob has a couple of interesting posts up. He challenges how conversations about diversity reinforce stereotypes, in particular of the white male. And he describes an approach to cancer screening that relies on herd principles for success.

Acting into thinking

Nice post from Viv leading to this thought:

We act our way into a new way of thinking, we don’t think our way into a new way of acting.

Liminality

Viv McWaters writes about liminality.

When you’re asking me to change a particular behaviour (even if it’s for my own good, or for the well-being of others, or even the planet) you’re asking me to let go of something familiar and take up something unfamilar. That space between letting go and grabbing on to something new is called liminal space. You’re asking me to enter a space of unknowing, of uncertaintly and of change. Is it any wonder I’m reluctant?

Other people's change can put us into liminal space too. Think of a parent who watches their child playing on a wall of a certain height... do they intervene for safety's sake or do they sit tight and manage their nerves, allowing the child to learn and grow?

Enough reinventing leadership, already

The title of Bob Sutton's latest post makes lots of sense to me:

Most claims of originality are testimony to ignorance and most claims of magic are testimony to hubris.

I share his weariness of efforts to radically "reinvent leadership".

Mush?

I've just stumbled across Jaron Lanier's op ed from the WSJ: World Wide Mush. It's like a trailer for his new book, You are not a gadget.

I found his argument confusing and a bit annoying. He seems to suggest that the mass collaborations made possible by the web will lead to a bland aggregation in which we all lose our personalities. He says

I don’t want our young people aggregated, even by a benevolent social-networking site. I want them to develop as fierce individuals, and to earn their living doing exactly that.

I find that a pretty bizarre and patronising argument - my experience of participating in social networking is that it contributes my individual learning and growth and I don't feel remotely aggregated.

(See also Caterina's post on the same topic.)

Hat tip: Open Culture who say

If you think this sounds like Ayn Rand philosophy (see vintage clip) grafted onto tech talk, you’re probably right.

Management by being interested

Euan Semple "Changing Innovation" (lift09 France EN) from Lift Conference on Vimeo.

Euan has posted his talk from LIFT last year. Good stuff, including his mini-rant against the costs of pomposity. I wanted to highlight the last chunk, starting around 12 mins.

This is where he argues that management doesn't disappear when organisations use social network tools, but it changes. Here's how he describes his role after the BBC introduced a forum and wiki.

I spent a lot of time and a lot of effort being interested in that space, being interested in what people were doing... and noticing things. Much harder work than managing something in a conventional sense. But by being there, noticing and being engaged, I had influence.

He talks about this as a fundamental difference in management style. Makes sense to me, especially with my notice more, change less mantra running.