When it comes to executing a plan when the futures is so wildly unpredictable, we have got to stop thinking of organizational change as a linear process. When it is done successfully over time, organizational change happens at multiple levels and in multiple social spaces, some of which are public and others that are more private.
We also need to remember that when we introduce organizational change, the desired changes within the plan are entering into a work environment that is defined by “historical choices” over time. Remember that past strategy created solutions and those solutions created history. That same history now influences the current strategy. Furthermore, the current execution of strategy is being constantly impacted by a permanently changing external environment. Therefore, we as leaders need to have the capacity to work at multiple levels at the same time and to move freely and competently through multiple and different social spaces.
Now a popular term related to executing a strategic plan successfully is “critical mass”. John Paul Lederach in his excellent book, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace (Oxford University Press, 2005) writes: “Creating self-sustained processes of social change is not just about numbers in a sequential formula. The critical mass was in asking what initial, even small things made exponentially greater things possible. In nuclear physics, the focus was the quality of the catalyst, not the numbers that followed.”
Most leaders focus on the number of changes taking place. For them, this indicates to that change is comprehensive and will achieve “critical mass”. But effective leaders focus on the quality of the catalyst and on the space needed to support and sustain the desired change. As Lederach explains: “It seems to me that the key to changing this thing is getting a small set of the right people involved in at the right places. What’s missing is not critical mass. The missing ingredient is the critical yeast.”
When we recognize the power and importance of the “critical yeast”, we then need to build and support “relational spaces”. This was the most mind blowing insight of the winter for me, i.e. the power of creating and supporting relational space. When I reflect on all the work I have done in my career, it is the development of “relational spaces” that has been the catalyst for success. While I could focus on the teaching of content, i.e. improving skill set, as most important, I have come to realize that it was the relational spaces created during the learning journey that was what made it transformational! By creating relational spaces and by maintaining relational health, people moved together through change in an empowered manner.
One problem we are experiencing right now is a lack of understanding “tangled networks”, using a Lederach term. Within a tangled networks, the starting place is not “what is the solution?” but instead “who do I know who knows the person (or the problem) with whom I have a problem who can help create a way out?” When the who question precedes the what question, solutions emerge from relational resources, connections, and obligations.
For those of you who have studied leadership over the years, this is the same conclusion that Jim Collins came up within his book, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap. . . and Others Don't (HarperBusiness, 2001). As he writes, “The key point … is not just the idea of getting the right people on the team. The key point is that "who" questions come before "what" decisions - before vision, before strategy, before organization structure, before tactics. First who, then what - as a rigorous discipline, consistently applied.”
We must have a “relationship-centric approach” to organizational change. Returning to Lederach’s research, that means we need to understand “how we approach and understand relational spaces” in a given organization. The goal is “to look at relationships through the lenses of social crossroads, connections, and interdependence.” In short we need to “understand the social geography” of our organization. As he writes, “I will argue that the moral imagination rises with the capacity to imagine ourselves in relationship, the willingness to embrace complexity without reliance on dualistic polarity, the belief in the creative act, and acceptance of the inherent risk required to break violence and to venture on unknown paths that build constructive change.”
This week become more aware that organizational change is not linear and that we need to build and maintain more relational space in order to be successful in the midst of these wildly unpredictable times.
No comments:
Post a Comment