Leading Change [Hardcover]

It is difficult to argue against Kotter’s views that in order to implement a major change one needs to create a sense of urgency for it, assemble a guiding coalition of powerful enough people to lead it, have a vision and strategy and communicate it well, frequently and to everybody, get rid of structural, cultural and system obstacles, consolidate gains on the way to facilitate further changes and ensure the changes are well anchored in the company’s culture and structures. But these are all well known, common sense ideas which have been tried before and yet so many change efforts still fail.

The problem is that Kotter, like almost everybody else, subscribes to the classic change management perspective where business change is seen as a gigantic, complex, difficult and lengthy one-off effort to move a company from where it is to some future state desired by its management board. As usual there is the scenario of everybody working hard and long hours and making sacrifices in the lengthy battle with status quo after which a state of corporate happiness will be achieved. Only to be followed, in time, by another Herculean one-off change effort. The major difference in Kotter’s book is the emphasis on leadership versus management. This must be ambrosia to the top executives - glamour can be intoxicating.

But as Kotter himself noticed, the rate of change is not slowing down, it is accelerating. So by the time the company has implemented this massive change and set it firmly in its culture and structures so that no gradual return to previous status quo is possible, the world around would have changed so much that this wonderful transition becomes largely irrelevant. Even the most humble of the employees will notice that and their enthusiasm and willingness for more sacrifices the next time round will be proportional to the relevance and real success of the previous effort.

In order to really be a winner in a volatile environment we need to make a fundamental shift in the way we perceive change: away from a series of discrete and sequential intrusions on ‘business as usual’ (the unfreeze – freeze model) to a multitude of ongoing, parallel and continuous processes (unified business change model). This is why standard programme management techniques even coupled with the inspiration of vision and strong leadership, the direction of strategy and powerful coalitions, the sustenance of short terms wins, etc. will never be sufficient to successfully control change. We need to move towards the unified business change model, i.e. operate a set of permanent processes specifically designed to manage any type and number of concurrent business changes and operate them like any other business processes. The vision and leadership are absolute imperatives but so are the day to day assessments of impacts and overlaps, the not so glamorous management and administration of multiple interdependent change initiatives. The world of changes will always, by its nature be, complex and full of interdependencies but we can make it visible so that the decisions will be well informed and all risks well understood.

If you were on a North Sea oil platform it is very unlikely that you'd jump 40 feet into the icy water just because someone said you should. If the platform were on fire, on the other hand, you'd probably jump without having to be told.

So, if you want to make a change management programme successful, just frighten people by demonstrating that they have more to lose by staying put than they do if they "jump".

Sound familiar?
Isn't Kotter's recommendation to establish a sense of urgency by analyzing competition and identifying potential crises another version of the same strategy?

The problem is that we know that people under threat/stress start to secrete certain chemicals (e.g. cortisol) which dampen down brain activity so as to cause them to become LESS flexible, LESS creative, LESS willing to take risks. In short, they are in the worst possible state to successfully implement a change management programme.

So what price the "burning platform" strategy - by any name you care to give it?

This is the sort of book that appeals to a certain type of executive because it allows them to blame everyone else when their change programme fails. What it doesn't tell them is that "command and control" management is the root cause of fiascos like BPR, "burning platforms" and the like.

What more effective management requires is better ideas, more skilfully applied, NOT just a more sophisticated version of the "same ol' same ol'", which is all that we have here.
With all due respect this is a blueprint for failure.

He differentiates managers from leaders where the former is more concerned with the smooth running of current conditions. The leader is more concerned with promoting meaningful change: developing a vision, making the vision transparent to others then implementing a plan that will make the vision reality.

According to Kotter, leaders typically make mistakes throughout this process. In the first chapter, Kotter briefly identifies eight key errors that prevent organizational transformation. He then addresses each in subsequent chapters.

Leading Change coincides with research that deeply rooted organizational change cannot come from one person. Change may start with one person, but it is more likely to become embraced and embedded with when a strong, broad-based coalition is guiding the organizational change.

The author proposes a fairly prescriptive format for leading an organization; however, there is latitude to make adjustments for your particular setting. I recommend Leading Change to those who have a vision, who are passionate about their ideas and are willing to work with others in making the vision reality. Before you read the book ask yourself whether you would rather manage a group or lead a team.