Another saying also rings true: Those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it. Whether in government, business or personal matters, we all know of examples of people who, if they had only stopped to reflect for more than a moment, would have avoided making a mistake. If only…
Catching up with old friends
I recently caught up with some friends whom I have not seen for a while. Both work for the same organisation but one suggested that everything had changed since they last saw me and the other that nothing much had changed.
It struck me that there constants and change around us all the time and our perceptions are based on what we choose to focus upon. As someone passionate about outdoor pursuits I appreciate that the sun, moon, and tide are constant whereas the currents, wind and weather are always changing. This is clearly a factor of whether you focus on the big picture or the small detail.
When embarking on a change programme what you choose to focus upon determines people’s perceptions. If they are worried about change perhaps focus then on the constants that they can rely upon like a lighthouse guiding you in turbulent seas. If they are impatient about change then maybe confidence can be built from incremental steps.
The challenge of leadership is choosing the right narrative which will appeal, galvanise and through a sense of community and shared purpose direct effort.
Big change or small change
I am reminded that Dave Brailsford [Performance Director for Team Sky (Great Britain’s professional cycling team),] believed in a concept that he referred to as the “aggregation of marginal gains.” He explained it as “the 1 percent margin for improvement in everything you do.” His belief was that if you improved every area related to cycling by just 1 percent, then those small gains would add up to remarkable improvement. (See link below)
There is no doubt that we are creatures of nature and nurture and that changes in the environment have a cumulative effect on our perceptions, our behaviours and potentially our values and sense of self.
Roberts Dilts's Neuro-Logical Levels (See link below) suggests that the environment affects us, just as much as we effect the environment. If we are in a nice place (environment) with kind people (behaviour) and feel able (capability) and valued (beliefs) we feel good about ourselves (identity) and potentially feel fulfilled (spiritual).
Approaching from the opposite direction also holds true, if they feel confident, competent, able and valued people will be able to change the environment around them; either by charisma or practically by making physical changes. This is what people seek to achieve when we talk about “empowerment” but this often fails if the components are not aligned.
The above suggests then that the impact of small changes should not be underestimated. However is it better to do 100 things at 1% or 1 thing at 100% or maybe find a sweet spot somewhere in the middle? Conventional thinking says success comes from focussing on what is important, what makes the biggest impact.
This suggest that the grand gesture, the iconic project, the land-mark or milestone should be the focus of attention.
What is the best approach?
So should changes be evolutionary, from within through coaching, support, training, guidance and using incremental initiatives to effect change? Or should changes be revolutionary and fundamentally challenge assumptions and re-direct attentions?
Key factors
1. The circumstances of the organisation will make a big difference. If you’re heading for a crash something radical and rapid may be called for. If all that is required is a small change in course then better to maintain momentum and commitment with small adjustments.
2. The perceptions, experience and expectations of the people will be a key factor: if the people aren’t right and you have little time then a revolution and recruitment may yield faster and better results than a development programme. If your raw material is good the development will reward you with continuity, loyalty and commitment.
3. The impact on key stakeholders including customers, suppliers, investors etc., may be a critical factor. Their perceptions of the products, services, people and leadership will provide the context and potentially the imperative for change.
4. The style and ambition of the leader will have a huge effect. Whether they are there as a fixer for the investors seeking to build a leadership legacy or delivery commercial impact.
Perhaps surprisingly I have put the leader last, albeit that leadership has the biggest impact. This is because I believe that circumstances dictate the choice of leader. History tells us that when circumstances change then new leadership generally follows.
Suggestions, feedback and alternative views are very welcome.
Links
http://jamesclear.com/marginal-gains
http://www.communicatingexcellence.com/wp-content/uploads/neurologicallevels.pdf
The Author
Tim Rogers is an experienced Project and Change Leader. He is founder of www.ciChange.org and curator for www.TEDxStHelier.Com . He is Programme Manager for the commercialization of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport, and previously Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI/NatWest, and Project Manager for the Incorporation of Jersey Post. He is also Commonwealth Triathlete and World Championships Rower with a passion for teaching and learning and is a Tutor/Mentor on the Chartered Management Institute courses. He is a Chartered Member of the British Computer Society, has an MBA (Management Consultancy) and is both a PRINCE2 and Change Management Practitioner.
Tim HJ Rogers
PRINCE2 - MBA (Consultancy) - APMG Change Practitioner
www.timhjrogers.com | Twitter @timhjrogers | Skype @timhjrogers | Mobile: 07797762051
Curator TEDxStHelier www.TEDxStHelier.com
Founder ciChange www.ciChange.org
No comments:
Post a Comment