When Change Is Hard: II

In Part I of this exploration of the challenges of Change, we examined two sources of difficulty — sources internal (our emotions) and source external (outside pressures). This time, we explore issues related to planning. We'll look at three sets of reasons why planning change is so difficult: unexpected linkages, unexpected detours, and the need for temporary bridges.

Unexpected linkages

Linkages between organizational elements are often informal and unaccounted for. When an unrecognized linkage exists, changing one of the linked elements requires that we deal with the other linked elements.

For example, when one group is physically situated close to another, friendships and associations form. Some of those connections might be channels for ongoing knowledge exchange. Separating the two groups by moving one group to a distant location can stress those connections, degrading performance. Relocating them both together might be preferable.

If we break linkages we don't understand, change can be hard. A plan to move one group might seem perfectly sound, but it can fail if it doesn't recognize the importance of bonds between people. What might seem like resistance could actually be the result of interrupted knowledge flow due to breaking connections.

Unexpected detours and backtracking

At times, only after we begin executing a change plan do we recognize some factors we neglected. When this happens, with a little luck, we can make adjustments and continue. But sometimes we have to stop or backtrack, replan, and begin again.

For example, in an acquisition, if we intend to relocate the acquired IT department, we might find that relocation is impractical because key people would require financial assistance with real estate issues. And keeping those people in place might also incur unsustainable costs. The department relocation plan wasn't defective, though it didn't anticipate real estate market conditions.

If a plan is incomplete, change can be hard. The people involved might not be resisting change — they might actually have legitimate issues that the plan didn't anticipate.

Temporary bridges

When we At times, only after we begin
executing a change plan
do we recognize some
factors we neglectedencounter or anticipate difficulty, we might not be able to change systems directly from their current configurations to the final configurations we seek. Sometimes, we must build temporary bridges.

For example, in the IT relocation problem, the organization might become a lender, investor, or loan facilitator, to enable people who are relocated to secure mortgages for new homes.

Plans that include interim configurations that we intend later to abandon aren't necessarily defective. And the people whose needs we're accommodating in this way aren't making trouble — they have legitimate needs that we must somehow address. Unless we can be flexible enough to find temporary bridges, change can be hard.

When change is hard, and when the job market is tight, some managers are tempted to communicate the change-or-else message. Resist the temptation. Someday, those who are unhappy will have alternatives. And they will choose them.   First issue in this series   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?

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?

Kinds of Organizational Authority: the Formal

A clear understanding of Power, Authority, and Influence depends on familiarity with the kinds of authority found in organizations. Here's Part I of a little catalog of authority classes.

Deciding to Change: Choosing

When organizations decide to change what they do, the change sometimes requires that they change how they make decisions, too. That part of the change is sometimes overlooked, in part, because it affects most the people who make decisions. What can we do about this?

Cyber Rumors in Organizations

Rumor management practices in organizations haven't kept up with rumor propagation technology. Rumors that propagate by digital means — cyber rumors — have longer lifetimes, spread faster, are more credible, and are better able to reinforce each other.

See also Organizational Change and Organizational Change for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming May 14: Working with the Overconfident

A cognitive bias known as the Overconfidence Effect causes us to overestimate the reliability of our judgments. Decisions we make based on those judgments are therefore suspect. But there are steps we can take to make our confidence levels more realistic, and thus make our decisions more reliable. Available here and by RSS on May 14.

And on May 21: Mismanaging Project Managers

Most organizations hold project managers accountable for project performance. But they don't grant those project managers control of needed resources. Nor do they hold project sponsors or other senior managers accountable for the consequences of their actions when they interfere with project work. Here's a catalog of behaviors worth looking at. Available here and by RSS on May 21.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenDJpmhgyaDTwBQXkhner@ChacmGoYuzfZpOvDQdRkoCanyon.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