In 1929, the automotive industry was as hot as the Internet was in the 90's. The people who led the major companies then were as well known as Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates are today. One of them was Walter Chrysler, who wanted to build the tallest building in the world, to be named — of course — the Chrysler Building. He found himself in a race with The Bank of Manhattan Trust Company, and he won.
The Chrysler Building, at a respectable height of 1,046 feet, won't stand forever. But nobody has ever deconstructed a skyscraper that tall, and we don't have any idea how to do it.
One thing is certain: the cost will be (ahem) sky-high. Since we've given so little thought to minimizing "deconstruction" cost, we now have an installed base of buildings that are stable and safe, but expensive to demolish.
So it is with organizational processes. We've designed them to effect management control — to ensure that people follow procedures and to enable management to control cost and quality. But they weren't designed for change, and that's one reason why change is so difficult.
How do organizational processes defend themselves against change? Here are three things to do to design processes that are easier to change.
- Break the performance connection
- We often tie performance evaluation to proficiency in organizational processes, which ties career advancement — and self-esteem — to a detailed knowledge of organizational processes. Once self-esteem is tied to the status quo, changing the status quo can create a threat to self-esteem. No wonder we have trouble.
- Tie performance to the ability to adapt to changing processes, rather than to skill in following processes of long standing. Reward flexibility, not compliance.
- Keep interfaces compact
- Most organizational processes
weren't designed for change,
and that's one reason
why change is so difficult
- Processes have interfaces consisting of forms, contacts, documentation, and so on. To use a process, people interact with it through its interface. When the interface is complex and diffuse, and linked to many other processes, we have more difficulty changing the process.
- Make process interfaces compact. To avoid reconfiguring the rest of the company when you change a process, keep as much of the process as possible behind the interface.
- Eliminate gatekeepers
- A gatekeeper is someone whose signature you need. For example, most organizations require a supervisor's signature for certain purchases, or for time cards. Some gatekeepers exist because of legal requirements, but many are created for political reasons. Since being a gatekeeper is often a badge of status, gatekeepers tend to resist attempts the change the processes they gate-keep.
- Avoid creating new gatekeepers. Empower staff to simply sign the forms themselves.
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!
For more information about the Chrysler Building, visit the PBS Web site.
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
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.
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.
More articles on Organizational Change:
- Now We're in Chaos
- Among models of Change, the Satir Change Model has been especially useful for me. It describes how people
and systems respond to change, and handles well situations like the one that affected us all on September
- He's No Longer Here
- Sometimes we adopt inappropriate technologies, or we deploy unworkable processes, largely because of
the political power of their advocates, and despite widespread doubts about the wisdom of the moves.
Strangely, though, the decisions often stick long after the advocates move on. Why? And what can we
do about it?
- Training Bounceback
- Within a week after we've learned some new tool or technique, sometimes even less, we're back to doing
things the old way. It's as if the training never even happened. Why? And what can we do to change this?
- When Change Is Hard: I
- Sometimes changing organizations goes smoothly. More often, it doesn't. Whatever methodology we use
— and there are many methodologies available — difficulties can arise. When change is hard,
what's happening? What makes change hard?
- Patching Up the Cracks
- When things repeatedly "fall through the cracks," we're not doing the best we can. How can
we deal with the problem of repeatedly failing to do what we need to do? How can we patch up the cracks?
See also Organizational Change for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming October 23: Power Distance and Teams
- One of the attributes of team cultures is something called power distance, which is a measure of the overall comfort people have with inequality in the distribution of power. Power distance can determine how well a team performs when executing high-risk projects. Available here and by RSS on October 23.
- And on October 30: Power Distance and Risk
- Managing or responding to project risks is much easier when team culture encourages people to report problems and question any plans they have reason to doubt. Here are five examples that show how such encouragement helps to manage risk. Available here and by RSS on October 30.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenmhXARWRMUvVyOdHlner@ChacxgDmtwOKrxnripPCoCanyon.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 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Race to the South Pole: Lessons in Leadership
On 14 December 1911, four men led by Roald Amundsen reached the South Pole. Thirty-five days later, Robert F. Scott and four others followed. Amundsen had won the race to the pole. Amundsen's party returned to base on 26 January 1912. Scott's party perished. As historical drama, why this happened is interesting enough. But to organizational leaders, business analysts, project sponsors, and project managers, the story is fascinating. We'll use the history of this event to explore lessons in leadership and its application to organizational efforts. A fascinating and refreshing look at leadership from the vantage point of history. Read more about this program.
Here's a date for this program:
- Baldwin-Wallace University, 275 Eastland Road, Berea, Ohio
44017: November 7,
Kerzner Lecture Series/International Project Management Day, sponsored by Baldwin Wallace University and the Northeast Ohio Chapter of the Project Management Institute.
- Baldwin-Wallace University, 275 Eastland Road, Berea, Ohio 44017: November 7, Kerzner Lecture Series/International Project Management Day, sponsored by Baldwin Wallace University and the Northeast Ohio Chapter of the Project Management Institute. Register now.
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
- Your stuff is brilliant! Thank you!
- You and Scott Adams both secretly work here, right?
- I really enjoy my weekly newsletters. I appreciate the quick read.
- A sort of Dr. Phil for Management!
- …extremely accurate, inspiring and applicable to day-to-day … invaluable.