jim.shamlin.com

9: Starting Your Smart Tribe

By know, you should understand the value of getting out of the animal state and getting into the smart state, but the benefits to being a smart individual in an animal culture are limited. As a leader, the transformation cannot stop at just yourself, but must create organizational change as well.

(EN: The demoralizing reality that the author fails to mention here is that an organization will fight to maintain its existing culture, even if it's a bad one - and while resistance should not prevent someone from trying to effect a positive change, the reality is some organizations don't want to be changed and will react quite brutally to attempts to evolve it from animal to human states.)

She considers three concepts important to organizational change:

The previous chapter mentioned some of the problems with "problems," the way in which it puts us into the animal state of reacting to something undesirable, doing the first thing that comes to mind, and often attacking a symptom rather than the real problem. Where cultural change is undertaken to address specific problems, the same shortcomings arise.

Tactical change is sometimes necessary in an emergency situation - to stop the bleeding at the surface while ignoring the deeper injury - but not all problems are emergencies and should not be treated as such. Making an effective an permanent change, one that addresses the cause rather than the symptoms, requires a more strategic approach, which his more intelligent and proactive than instinctual and reactive.

To make systemic change it is necessary to focus on the future state rather than the present issue, however pressing it may seem. You must understand where you are, understand where you want to be, and understand the changes that are necessary to get from one to the other - and to understand this all in an intelligent and attentive way, rather than dealing with superficialities.

The Logical Levels of Change

The author suggests six levels of change, from superficial to core:

  1. Environment
  2. Behavior
  3. Capability
  4. Beliefs
  5. Identity
  6. Culture

The first three levels are superficial, and deal with symptoms rather than causes. The last three are underlying and pertain to the causes. (EN: I don't think it quite works as a chain of causation in the order she provides, not is it linear - i.e., culture does not create identity and identity does not create beliefs but the three are intermingled, with identity and beliefs interacting to create culture, but culture also promotes beliefs that are integrated into identity. All in all, it's sloppy and I expect this will mar the theory based on this foundation.)

Change can be implemented at any level: we can change the environment and hope it will sink in to behaviors, or we can change beliefs and hope it will radiate out to capabilities. Naturally, the author believes inside-out is more effective than outside-in, but outside-in does sometimes seem to work.

She uses the example of medicine - a doctor who treats symptoms has a great deal of job security because the patient's pain is alleviated while his condition is not approved, such that he can treat one symptom after another without addressing the cause. Many organizations that are deeply diseased can be strung along for decades by managers who treat symptoms - and can survive, but not prosper.

There's a specific barb at managers who redecorate the office or change reporting structures in the org chart as an attempt to "shake people up" and hope something good happens. That's not to say these practices are altogether bad, as it helps to sell the notion that a change is happening. But if all you do is redecorate and it is not accompanied by a more substantial change, then it will be a complete coincidence if any real change is effected.

The inside-out approach takes longer, which is why many who wish to demonstrate "leadership ability" in getting short-term results are so reluctant to make changes of any real consequence: a symptom can be quickly addressed, a cause takes much longer.

But rather than advocating for inside-out, the author suggests working change on multiple levels at once - the superficial changes will get quick wins that build enthusiasm while the deeper changes percolate at a slower pace. The tricky bit is that there must be orchestration so that the surface changes do not work against the deeper ones, but both support each other.

Environment

The environment pertains to the physical and emotional conditions of the office. It is everything from the decor and furnishings to the expressions people use when they speak to one another.

She mentions changing chairs at a meeting causes people to have to re-orient themselves, but it doesn't change relationships, as they fall back into previous behaviors quickly. The same is true of changing the organization chart, giving someone a new job title, etc.

The environment is highly visible, but also highly superficial - and a lot of silliness in the corporate world arises from companies attempting to mimic the superficial changes made by other firms. It is assumed that if you put video games in the break rooms and let people bring their pets to work, then your company will become just as innovative as a start-up firm. But these are environmental and superficial, and alone do not cause change to the underlying culture.

However, do not dismiss the value of environmental changes: changing from cubicles that keep people isolated and separated from one another is, in fact, harmful to collaboration and changing to a more open floor plan can increase collaboration - but only if the culture becomes collaborative as well.

She speculates that this would not work in a company with a core culture that was opposed to interaction - one where there is a strong sense of a bureaucratic hierarchy, people are discouraged from communicating outside of formal communication channels, and in which "chatting" with coworkers is discouraged as a waste of time. Even if you change the floor plan, people will not interact with one another significantly more because the core culture discourages it.

(EN: I've seen this very thing happen in an office where they created an open plan and gave everyone laptops so they could move about and assemble as-needed with the different project teams they were working with. The employees cable-locked their laptops to specific desks and went about business as usual. The company made a superficial change without changing the underling culture, so the superficial change did not have any effect at all.)

Behavior

Consider the phenomenon of New Year's resolutions, in which people resolve themselves to making behavioral changes. What a joke! The author suggests that about 90% of people go back to their old patterns within three weeks, and completely abandon their resolutions, even if they felt very strongly committed when they made them.

Behavior change without support from a deeper level simply does not stick, because the animal brain looks for the comfort and safety of old and familiar routines. This may happen slowly over the course of a few weeks, or it may be an instant snap back at the first crisis that arises.

She speaks specifically of agile software development, which proposes a change in the behavior and working patterns of individuals. For some companies it works wonders, but for others it doesn't work at all and can be counterproductive. The difference is that those who find it useful have made a deeper change as well, and have committed themselves to the underlying principle of "people over process." Those that want to change the behaviors but keep their old process and procedure orientation will get little value from agile.

(EN: Again, I've seen this in personal experience of an IT department that wanted to be agile, but wanted to keep managerial authority and maintain all the old checkpoints and approval processes. The two are incompatible, and the result has thus far been not only failure of the agile process, but a great deal of frustration and misery for employees who are demanded to behave in a way that breaks the rules of the old system in a culture where rewards and punishments to force them to follow the old rules were kept firmly in place.)

Capability

Capabilities derive from the resources and skills people have that enable them to implement certain behaviors and achieving certain outcomes. (EN: I would include policies and procedures in this category - though they do not create additional capabilities, they discourage or prevent people from doing things that they are otherwise capable of doing.)

Capabilities are not as simple as they might seem: consider the capability of public speaking. Anyone can talk, but not everyone is capable of public speaking - and it's more than just the need to overcome psychological reluctance (which is necessary, but not sufficient), as successful public speaking requires the development of presentation skills to be effective at addressing a group.

(EN: Here, the author stops, but this topic requires a lot more attention than this. Chiefly, that an organization must provide capabilities to its people, in terms of physical equipment and skills development. Also, that merely giving someone a tool does not give them the skill to use it. Further, that even having the tools and the training is not sufficient to effect a change in behavior. This should be of significant concern to organizations, because providing capabilities is often directly correlated to expenses and ledger-brained executives are constantly looking at the ROI and make the rather serious mistake of demanding outcomes without providing capabilities.)

Beliefs

A person's beliefs describe the way the world works and their place in it. They are often considered to be highly subjective and quite often specious and incorrect - but for each individual, his beliefs are firm truths. Beliefs are strongly correlated to behavior - they provide the person with their basic sense of what is right and wrong, good and bad, possible or impossible, desirable or detestable, possible or impossible, etc.

Beliefs are also deeply rooted in the human mind - few people have done the necessary thinking to fully understand their beliefs, and deal with them in a vague and superficial way. That is, they act first and justify it later, based on what is psychologically comfortable for them, rather than exploring and developing a coherent, consistent, and rational code of beliefs. As a result, altering beliefs requires a great deal of effort to unearth what a person's current beliefs are, and then getting them to recognize the positive potential in changing their beliefs.

Organizations also have beliefs, and they are rather easier to detect because there is more overt evidence - an organization communicates its beliefs to its people. When it does not do so in an overt manner, it does so implicitly: you can look at any directive or program implemented in a firm, and ask yourself what the organization must have believed in order to issue it: it believed that the outcome it wanted to achieve was desirable, and it believed that the means by which it would act would be effective - both can be boiled down to the fundamental beliefs that are necessary.

(EN: I would interject that looking at the actions of an organization, as well as an individual, is necessary even when they have stated their beliefs overtly. Companies and people state noble beliefs, which may stem from self-delusion or the desire to make others trust them, but their behavior is not always in line with those beliefs. A liar wants you to think he is honest, and a traditional firm wants investors and customers to think it is innovative, but the behavior they undertake tells whether this is true.)

Identity

Identity is a collection of beliefs about a person or organization. There are often two identities - the one we have of ourselves, and the one others have of us. There is often more than two, because each person or group who perceives us has their own idea about our identity. A company may be have a different identity to its employees, shareholders, and customers.

(EN: Integrity can also be an issue here when a person or a firm actively works to establish different identities to different groups. That's a separate and more complicated issue - but it is worth mentioning as the author seems to take the perspective that identity is a single thing.)

The author speaks of a British documentary series (Almond and Apted's "Up" series) in which a fourteen people was interviewed at age seven, and then re-interviewed every seven years afterward: 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, and 49 (so far - the age 56 interviews were only recently completed, likely released after this book was written). She remarks that over the course of all this time, the people have remained essentially the same.

(EN: This is not entirely accurate: their identities have evolved, but some of the core qualities of their personalities have remained the same. I strongly suspect that the interviews are conducted, and the film edited, to promote a sense of continuity and downplay any significant changes to support the foregone conclusion that people do not change. This is not to dismiss the validity of the perspective, as I am inclined to agree that most people remain consistent throughout their lives, but merely to suggest it may be intentionally exaggerated to downplay or ignore the change that people are entirely capable of making.)

Most personality tests use a series of questions to get people to explore their beliefs about themselves, and discover that "I am [blank]" with the blank filled in with various qualities of character. This is their self-identity that may or may not be aligned with the way that others identify them - and significantly, it is the identity most people consider to be their "true" identity such that anyone who disagrees has a false perception of them.

Companies, too, have self-identities that are communicated through documents such as their mission, vision, and values statements. Just like with people, companies' self-identities may be out of joint with the way others perceive them. And just like people, the company assumes its desired identity will be accepted as its true identity. (EN: but unlike people, a company's actions may be far removed from the identity they describe - because their identity is crafted with the intent of making a positive impression on others.)

Culture

The very core of the organization is its culture, as it is in the context of this culture that every plan is made, every order is given, every action is taken. Culture is distinct to organizations, as it is negotiated among the members of an organization.

People do not determine culture as individuals - though they may conform or reject to the culture of various groups with which they are involved, and may embody certain personal characteristics adopted from the culture of these groups. So when we speak of the culture of a person, it contextualizes them in alignment with organizations - it does not come from within. (EN: Though they have personality and character, which is largely the equivalent.)

Culture embraces the self-identity of an organization (what it believes to be presently true about itself) as well as what it wishes to become. Its practices and rituals derive from its culture, and it rewards and punishes people for conforming to its culture.

It is ultimately on the level of culture that all changes must take effect - because when there is conflict between any change made at a higher level and the core culture of an organization, the culture will win every time.

Understanding As-Is and To-Be States

Many executives are caught up in day-to-day firefighting and making decisions to provide immediate remedies to problems as they arise, and meanwhile failing to accomplish the larger goals of their organization. Simply stated, "Tactics are stupid." They do not fix anything in the long-term and make only partial and short-term changes. They treat the symptom rather than the system.

To effect a permanent change in the system, we must first understand the causes (rather than symptoms) of the current situation and develop a vision of what we want the future situation to be - then work to achieve it, accepting progress toward the desired state as a sign of progress - partial success rather than partial failure.

Referring to the previous section, most problems occur to us because of the symptoms we see at the top three levels (environment, behavior, and capabilities) - but if we treat them at that level, the treatment is superficial and does not address the cause of the problem on one of the deeper three levels (beliefs, identity, and culture).

The author recommends listing out all six levels, and describing the present state and desired state at all six levels. She illustrates this with a rather extended, oblique, and contrived narrative. Some points of interest are:

Stages of the Change Process

Not everyone is going to embrace and celebrate the opportunity to make a change. Those who are miserable will be glad of it, those who are happy with the status quo will oppose it. Most people exist at a point in between the two extremes, where they have some level of dissatisfaction and some level of satisfaction, and are genuinely afraid that any change will make things worse rather than better.

Most managers dread changes because they will encounter resistance - but should instead recognize that resistance is part of the change process, and rather a useful one at that because it is an indicator of where work is needed to effect the change. (EN: I would also add that it's a good ego-check to consider whether resistance is warranted or justified, rather than bullying forward as if the plan is flawless - because no plan ever is.)

From her experience, she sees change as a process. Companies and groups do not turn on a dime, but go through a process of change. And across various industries and cultures, she has observed that the change process is relatively uniform. There is an "organizational change adoption path" that has five stages:

  1. Resistance. There is a knee-jerk reaction to any change, particularly when people do not see the necessity of change. It can be decreased if people have adequate information, particularly to the benefits of making the change, but there will always be some level of resistance.
  2. Mockery. At this stage people accept that the change is going to be pushed upon them, and engage their humor to disparage the changes. The author says "I love this stage" because it is very useful in identifying the need to convince people - when people complain openly, under the safety of humor, they express real concerns, which is much better than remaining silent and playing along. They can also be engaged to improve the plan. And significantly, you can consider what they are not mocking as acceptable.
  3. Usefulness. At this stage, the people recognize the value of making a change. This is the turning point in the change process because people will be willing to accept discomfort in order to achieve positive results. They truly believe that the change is for the better and will stop resisting (though they may try to find different ways to achieve the desired outcomes).
  4. Habituation. The people who must support the change are taking actions to do so - with some effort at first, but eventually they become habituated and practice the new patterns of behavior without having to think or compel themselves to do so.
  5. New Standard. The final step in the change process occurs when "the new way" of doing things becomes "the customary way" of doing them and it is now the normal way of doing business.

The path to change is somewhat linear, but does not always proceed from one step to another. As you make adjustments to your plan, you are introducing new changes - or changing the changes you wanted to make - and the process starts over. Big changes are often an amalgam of many small ones - and you have to recognize each change on a granular level rather than assuming that they can be managed in aggregate. Also, people across an organization are not in lock-step and work at different things at different times. As such, one department may be working on step four when another is just starting at step one.

She also suggest it's valuable to be completely transparent in assessing the change process - not to keep it a secret, but to let everyone know where they are on the continuum. (EN: I like the idea, but see it as difficult in some instances when your assessment of the progress or failure might be misinterpreted and taken personally by certain individuals, or when you have saboteurs in the mix, to whom this would be valuable intelligence for working to undermine the change process.)

The change process can be accomplished in days, or may take months or years depending on many factors, not the least of which is the scope of the change and how ingrained people are in their present modes of behavior.

The Pain and Reward Networks

People do not resist change for the sake of resistance. Instead, they perceive that a change will have negative consequences - it will remove the rewards they are accustomed to receiving, and it will create pain that it does not normally have. The animal part of the human brain is finely tuned to the potential for pain and rewards, more so on the former, and reacts to support or resist changes according to the impact it will have on pain and pleasure.

A thoughtful leader can become attuned to these concerns, and assuage them - however, many fail to look beyond the functional consequences of a change to consider the emotional and social impact that a change will have on the employees who are affected.

People in groups have social attachments, and peoples' moods are largely driven by the comfort they take from others in their tribe. While the functional change may be simple, breaking social links between people is often painful.

Consider that on a societal level, the worst punishments inflicted on people often use social disruption to inflict pain upon them. When a person is imprisoned or exiled, there is no physical pain inflicted upon them, but the loss of their connection to the group to which they formerly belonged causes them considerable emotional distress. Even without removing a person from society, refusing to interact with them causes great discomfort - and this is the way in which many social norms are enforced.

When a company changes the organization chart, or even shifts procedures, it is breaking the social bonds that give people comfort and security. They will have to work with new groups, and will no longer interact with their former colleagues. This is very painful, and management very seldom considers it.

Aside of peer connections, people feel a close attachment to their leaders. And when leaders do things that cause them pain, they feel betrayed, neglected. They feel they can no longer trust their leaders, and lose loyalty to them. This is the reason that every organizational change results in an exodus.

When people feel their leader genuinely cares for them, they will place greater trust in him and be less resistant to his suggestions for change, as they presume he will consider their welfare and not just his own agenda. Leaders who do not earn trust have a great deal more difficulty selling change within an organization.

There's been a lot of psychological research into pain and pleasure, and many people cling to outdated notions about it - that pain and pleasure are automatic motivators and that people become easily conditioned. The more recent view is that pain and pleasure are signals, which are subject to interpretation through the emotional and rational centers of the brain.

JIM.SHAMLIN.COM
DISCLAIMERS · CONTACT