What Keeps Things the Way They Are

If you've ever participated in a workplace change initiative, you know how difficult Change can be. The difficulty of changing organizations raises an intriguing question: Why is change so difficult? One part of the answer might be found in the answer to another question: Why are things the way they are?

When I used to ask clients this question, the most frequent responses related to origin. People tended to focus on causes, authorship, history, and the like. While this information is fascinating, it isn't usually very helpful to the change agent. It's unhelpful because in many cases the original author or the original cause that brought about the current status quo is no longer active in the present situation.

That's why I now prefer a different question: "What keeps things the way they are?" Answers to this question can be more helpful because the question focuses our search on factors that are active in the present situation. They might be acting to prevent change.

The bogus law of process inertia

My own view Over time, processes evolve unless
there are control mechanisms in
place to maintain their integrityis that things are the way they are because one or more forces act to keep them there. Often, we operate as if the reason why things are the way they are is that they were made that way once, and unless something comes along to change the situation, things remains unchanged. Sometimes I've heard people cite Newton's first law, the law of inertia:

An object at rest will remain at rest, and an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted on by a net external force.

The widespread belief is that organizational processes are also subject to a law of inertia. We might call it the Law of Process Inertia. This "law" would be:

In any organization, a process will remain unchanged unless someone who has the power to change the process decides to change it.

Although this "law" is stated simply, its simplicity is deceptive. Close examination reveals serious questions about its validity.

For example, people — in some cases, many people — are responsible for executing organizational processes. And people don't always execute processes in the prescribed manner, for a variety of reasons. Some examples:

• They don't remember how to execute the process "by the book"
• They think of a "better" way to do it, not appreciating all the reasons why the process is what it is
• They take shortcuts because they have too much work to do
• They don't fully understand the process, but they do the best they can

The above list is a sample. Clearly, there are many more reasons why people deviate from prescribed processes. Over time, the effect of these deviations is to produce a new process that's similar to the prescribed process, but which can differ from it in important respects. In this way, processes evolve unless there are control mechanisms in place to maintain their integrity.

That's why I believe that the Law of Process Inertia isn't a law. Processes can change even if no powerful individual decides to change them.

One reason why changing processes is difficult

Although processes can drift and change by slow evolution, they can be difficult to change when we want to modify them. "Change" in this sense means "change in the way we want them to change, and in the timeframe we want." To change a process we must arrange for the users of that process to adopt whatever modifications comprise the change. That's the part that can be difficult.

Suppose P is the process we want to change. Difficulty in changing P can arise when there are mechanisms in place in the organization that act on P to drive it to some goal configuration that differs from the configuration we seek. The goal-seeking action of these mechanisms might or might not be an intended consequence of any other organizational process. And the people of the organization responsible for P might or might not be aware of these mechanisms.

Worse, the goal configurations for the different mechanisms acting on P can differ. In that case, the mechanisms seeking to affect P tend to "fight it out." The end result for P might or might not be explicitly a goal of any of the mechanisms influencing P.

Here's an example.

Consider a particular process P. P is documented, but the documentation is out of date. Fortunately, Paula is an expert in P. If anyone wants to use P, and if he or she isn't quite certain how to do it, Paula helps out. For years, Paula's performance reviews have included comments about her cheerful willingness to act as an expert in P. It's a matter of pride for her and her supervisor.

From time to time, process consultants have proposed automating much of P. Paula and her allies, including her supervisor, haven't been very cooperative in these efforts. Indeed, they've often expressed disapproval of the design proposals for Automated-P.

What's happening here is that the performance management system is acting to keep P in its current state, preventing the introduction of Automated-P. Paula and her supervisor base their self-esteem, in part, on Paula's expertise in P. No one designed P this way. Keeping P from changing isn't the purpose of the performance management system, but that's nevertheless what it does.

Last words

Even though processes slowly evolve on their own, changing them in some way can be difficult unless we first uncover the mechanisms that work to hold them more or less in place. In some cases, if you can identify and alter the "regulator mechanisms" first, change initiatives can go more smoothly. If the regulator mechanisms remain untouched, then even if you succeed in changing the target process, it's likely to drift back in the direction of the old status quo.  Top    Next Issue

Is your organization embroiled in Change? Are you managing a change effort that faces rampant cynicism, passive non-cooperation, or maybe even outright revolt? Read 101 Tips for Managing Change to learn how to survive, how to plan and how to execute change efforts to inspire real, passionate support. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Organizational Change:

Don't Rebuild the Chrysler Building

When we undertake change, we're usually surprised at the effort and cost required. Much of this effort and cost is necessary because of the nature of the processes we're changing. What can we do differently to make change easier in the future?

The True Costs of Cost-Cutting

The metaphor "trimming the fat" rests on the belief that some parts of the organization are expendable, and we can remove them with little impact on the remainder. Ah, if only things actually worked that way...

Reactance and Micromanagement

When we feel that our freedom at work is threatened, we sometimes experience urges to do what is forbidden, or to not do what is required. This phenomenon — called reactance — might explain some of the dynamics of micromanagement.

Changing Blaming Cultures

Culture change in organizations is always challenging, but changing a blaming culture presents special difficulties. Here are three reasons why.

The Passion-Professionalism Paradox

Changing the direction of a group or a company requires passion and professionalism, two attributes often in tension. Here's one possible way to resolve that tension.

See also Organizational Change and Problem Solving and Creativity for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming May 1: Antipatterns for Time-Constrained Communication: 2

Recognizing just a few patterns that can lead to miscommunication can reduce the incidence of miscommunications. Here's Part 2 of a collection of antipatterns that arise in communication under time pressure, emphasizing those that depend on content. Available here and by RSS on May 1.

And on May 8: Antipatterns for Time-Constrained Communication: 3

Recognizing just a few patterns that can lead to miscommunication can reduce the incidence of problems. Here is Part 3 of a collection of antipatterns that arise in technical communication under time pressure, emphasizing past experiences of participants. Available here and by RSS on May 8.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info