“Nearly 60 percent of projects aimed at achieving business change do not fully meet their objectives.” – IBM, 2008.

Why does this happen? As many working in Knowledge Management and related fields understand, it’s all about people and complexity. Organisations are increasingly dependent on people and what they know in order to operate successfully in today’s environment. It is no longer sufficient for organisational change to be driven by a small handful of people – there is no monopoly on ideas.

This is the topic of the presentation I delivered last Wednesday night at the Melbourne KMLF.  The slide pack is now available on SlideShare.

I have posted on this topic here before, and delivered an earlier version of the presentation at trampoline.  

Key points in this presentation are:

• Recent insights into effective organisational change.
• The impact of complexity and the importance of engaging people. 
• Creativity and the wisdom of crowds. 
• Social Media – the power of trust and openness.

For more background on the topics covered, here are some links to the material referenced:

• See the Wikipedia entry for Cynefin.
• Read more about Teresa Amabile’s work in an earlier post here – or see the original Harvard Business School article.
• See the RSA Animate overview of Dan Pink’s Drive on YouTube – The surprising truth about what motivates us.
• Read Greg Lloyd’s blog post about Drucker – Enterprise 2.0 Schism.
• See John Smythe’s Engage for Change site.
• See the Wikipedia entry for The Wisdom of Crowds.

For more on the change management tools and approaches mentioned, see these sites:

• Cognitive Edge - David Snowden’s site  – for Cynefin and complexity tools.
• Anecdote - Shawn Callahan and Mark Schenk’s site – for business storytelling, change and anecdote circles.
• Gurteen Knowledge - David Gurteen’s site – for knowledge cafés.
• Change Management Toolbox – Michelle Lambert’s site - for the change management cards..
• The Organizational Zoo – Arthur Shelley’s site – for the book The Organizational Zoo and the matching zoo cards.

Finally, see “How to organise a children’s party” on YouTube.

Now if we could only get governments to pay some real attention to this…

The issues

There are four Mega-trends in the world at the moment: Climate change, Demographic change, Urbanisation and Globalisation.  Energy is linked to all four, and water plays a role in two of the four.

Although we definitely have a number of crises on our hands in Australia, we sometimes forget that we are amazingly well-off compared to many parts of the world – for now.  We have plenty of water in Australia; it’s just not all in the right places.  We have excellent access to all known forms of energy; we are currently relying too much on coal & oil, the sources with the highest per capita emissions.  Our immediate survival is not under threat.  However, the time to act is now – before things get worse.  The “do nothing” option means that we can expect an increase in emissions of 50% over the same 50 year period.

We also often tend to see only the costs of the solutions. We need to remember that new technologies also create more jobs. There are sound economic reasons for changing the game. However, “changing our view of the future can be unsettling”. It would be much better for our economy to invest in technology rather than buying in offshore CO2 certificates!

What kind of future do you want?

Siemens have applied their “Picture the Future” innovation approach to these issues; this approach is:

Concept > Research > Scenario >Validation >Picture

The validation component is where they bring in partners, such as the CSIRO and university researchers – there were representatives from both of these presenting on the day.

Some of the key items presented were as follows:

Energy

• Energy production in Australia is currently responsible for 50% of our greenhouse gas emissions.
• The blueprint calls for the electrification of all road transport (bad news for petrol-heads, perhaps).
• We need to move to more renewable energy sources – for instance, geothermal has to become a major source of power generation.
• We also need to improve distribution technology. High-voltage Direct Current (HVDC) is the power transmission technology of the future, & could allow power sales to Asia.
• With the right technology, Australia’s daylight electricity demand could be met by a desert collector area of 30 x 30 km. Big, but a number that can be visualised!
• Electricity price will increase by 30%; but if household power efficiency can improve by 30%, then it means no change.

Water

• Australia’s water use exceeded our natural supply in the mid-90s.
• Some of our water assets were built in the 19th century – this is an industry that only changes slowly.
• Change also requires major change in community values & expectations – how much recycled water can we accept in our supply?
• Waste water “factories” can extract chemicals to produce fertiliser.
• We can be more efficient – for instance, Sydney today uses the same total amount of water that was used in the 70s, but with 1 million more people.
• Water usage reduction also reduces the power consumption required to distribute that water.
• We need a target of 65% power reduction for desalination plants by 2030.
• We need flexibility and adaptability – no single solution will meet all needs, and “formulaic approaches” are unsustainable.

How can it happen?

Now the tricky part. Siemens have “painted the picture” – the technology is here, but now it is ”up to the legislators to determine how it can be managed and paid for”.  We need a better regulatory & legislative framework to make it happen. Do our governments have the will to do this? Siemens also suggest that the “power generators have to contribute”. 

Imposing a pricing regime alone should not be expected to change behaviour – it certainly hasn’t worked for petrol – we need other solutions. 

What can we do?

What can we each do to encourage real change? Can individuals make a difference?  For one thing, we need to tell our political parties that our voting depends on them taking the right steps.

The success of “Earth Hour” was quoted as an example of how rapidly people can become engaged in a change initiative.  Over just two years, Earth Hour has grown from just one city to over 4000 cities in 88 countries.  From the Earth Hour site:

Earth Hour started in 2007 in Sydney, Australia when 2.2 million homes and businesses turned their lights off for one hour to make their stand against climate change. Only a year later and Earth Hour had become a global sustainability movement with more than 50 million people across 35 countries participating. Global landmarks such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge, The CN Tower in Toronto, The Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, and Rome’s Colosseum all stood in darkness, as symbols of hope for a cause that grows more urgent by the hour.

In March 2009, hundreds of millions of people took part in the third Earth Hour. Over 4,000 cities in 88 countries officially switched off to pledge their support for the planet, making Earth Hour 2009 the world’s largest global climate change initiative.

* For more information, download the resources from Picture the Future here.

The 3e Factor is an innovative management consultancy specialising in business transformation, leadership development, and recruitment services, with its head office in Melbourne, Australia. Our focus is: Transforming Strategic Thinking into Reality by Developing Corporate Capability.

Have a look at the site, and browse the capabilities of the consultants working with the group.

Please feel free to contact me or The 3e Factor  if you would like to know more.

The topic of organisational change – and getting people more involved in it – is something I have been becoming quite passionate about for a while now.  This presentation at trampoline will be the first time I have presented on the topic. I intend to develop this work, and its linking themes, in time to come.  I am currently playing with a new term for this – “orgsourcing”. You heard it first here!

The brief was a keynote presentation for Panviva’s annual SupportPoint User Conference.  SupportPoint is a “Business Process Guidance” system.

The brief was to deliver a Keynote presentation, and to set the theme for the conference: “Communication and Collaboration”.  The underlying theme that I used to couch this on was Creativity, and the importance of creativity in both leadership and knowledge work.  The slide pack is available on SlideShare.

I have used this as a good opportunity to shake off (at least some of) the shackles of PowerPoint – by using lots of pictures, and a lot less words.  Some of the photos are mine, and most of the rest are Flickr “Creative Commons – Attributions” licensed photos, all with links on the relevant slides.

As there are lots of pictures, some of the slides may not be clear without the voice over (which maybe I’ll add to SlideShare later).  The initial point is explaining my initial perceptions of creativity – influenced by the paintings of both my mother and my sister.  (See the post “Moving mountains” on this site for more of this story.)

The next section refers to the material in this post on creativity in leadership, and briefly touches on my thoughts on Change Management. I then go over some of my past experiences with a Knowledge Management Toolkit, and how we went about developing it.  The final part of the presentation picks up on a recent post on story at Anecdote, which includes a link to the story of “the one-armed boy”.

With that explanation, I hope it all makes sense, and that you enjoy this as much as I did!

Just reading about yet another organisational survey-like tool – you know, “rate your organisation’s ability at (xyz) on a scale of 1 to 10″.  It reminded me of one I was asked to respond to some time ago.  Working for a multi-siloed behemoth of an organisation, my response to each question was “it depends”.  There was no way to answer this sort of thing on an organisation-wide basis, because the answer would be different in different silos – or even different areas within each silo.

… which in turn made me think about other surveys that never seem to offer choices that make sense, and the general low opinion of surveys that many people have (particularly the odd one or two on actKM).

So, I thought, why not make a survey a two-part approach. 

First, you send out an outline of the information you wish to collect and the set of questions that you think will be useful to collect the information (maybe to a sub-group of the full survey population).  Ask your correspondents to fill in the sort of answers that they would like to choose from, and to also suggest better questions to collect the information.

Then, use what you have collected to construct the actual survey.

The success of this would depend entirely on how many people respond to the first part – once you get something useful from that, you should get a far stronger response to the actual survey!

Has anyone ever done this – on any sort of a reasonable scale?

Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it.  Also, set up a system of cold water sprinklers over the whole cage.

Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs to climb towards the banana.  As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the monkeys with cold water. The monkey will leave the banana alone and try to get away from the water.  Turn off the spray.

After a while, another monkey will make an attempt with the same result. Pretty soon the monkeys will get sick of getting wet, and will stop any of the monkeys from attempting to climb the stairs, even though no water sprays them.

Keep this up for several days.

Now, remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one.

The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. Even the previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm. Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth.

Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked.

Some (and eventually all) of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the monkeys in the cage have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana.

Why is this?

Because as far as they know that’s the way it’s always been done around here…

———————

This story appears in a few places on the web – one is on the Wow Zone site.

The thing that I would really like to know is whether or not this was ever performed as a real experiment, or if it has only ever been a thought experiment.  Either way, though, it seems to be a powerful illustration of the pitfalls in standardised work practices and bureaucracy.  This is another topic that Shugg wrote about recently, too.

When will we learn to keep a constant eye on the things we do to ourselves in most organisations?

Mr Winn earlier updated business leaders on Telstra’s five-year transformation program…  As well, Mr Winn, who began his career as a linesman in the US, delivered a testosterone-charged description of the new management style at the telco.

“We’re not running a democracy. We don’t manage by consensus,” he said.  We’re criticised for it. The fact of the matter is we run an absolute dictatorship,” he said.

A cultural shift was needed at the former government-owned enterprise, along with changes in business processes, he said.  “If you can’t get the people to go there and you try once and you try twice … then you just shoot them and get them out of the way.”

I offer this without further comment.  Please compare this with the earlier post and tell me which view you think offers the best business result…

“It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problem just with potatoes.”
 - Douglas Adams

When leaders learn to creatively engage their subordinates in everyday decision making, they can make change happen.

I have written here before about Change Management.  I am still of the opinion that this is an entirely misunderstood function in most of today’s organisations.  It was thus rather refreshing to read in the current issue of IABC’s Communications World magazine that someone has actually done some research that supports my view!

The quote above is from John Smythe, the author of the article Engaging Employees to Drive Performance.  (This is available to IABC members online at the magazine site above.)

The usual concept of change is that it is “done” by executives (usually aided and abetted by consultants).  We have more recently introduced the discipline of Change Management as a way of helping people to adapt to the agreed change.  Today, we focus more on Employee Engagement as a way of more actively getting staff involved in understanding the change, rather than just being told about it after the fact.

But all of this is still based on a “command and control” model.  It assumes that the CEO has a monopoly on all ideas relevant to the performance of the organisation.  This is a rather unfair assumption in the post-industrial era.  It may well have been the case some years ago, but in the vast majority of cases, organisations today depend much more upon the knowledge held by the people within the organisation.

So, if the people have the knowledge on how the organisation works, why not actually include them in designing the change?

This is where John Smythe’s work has focused.  Working with McKinsey, he researched 59 organisations globally, looking for the “single, most influential cause of more engaged employees.”  He concluded that this was “the appetite and ability of leaders at every level to engage their subordinates in everyday decision making and bigger-ticket change.”

This requires all managers to effectively share their power.  This is not something that is easy or natural for a command-and-control manager!  Nor is it something that we are teaching managers to do.  It means admitting that you actually don’t know all the answers.

Why are we not teaching managers this?  Isn’t it becoming obvious that the more complex our organisations are becoming, the less likely it is that anyone in the organisation has all the answers?

I found in my last term as a team leader that – even with this approach at the core of my own leadership philosophy – it so often seemed to be easier to make my own decisions, and advise the team later.  Yet any time that I did this, I then had to spend extra time explaining the decision to the team, sometimes discovering that if I had involved the team in the decision making process, they would have come up with better ideas – and achieved the result quicker – because they were closer to the work.

It is important for all knowledge-based organisations today that we change the culture of all our managers.  Engaging staff in change must be seen as a sign of strength, not a sign of weakness and uncertainty.  The organisations that Smythe researched have been able to engage staff without slowing down output – in fact, they have improved performance as a result of people sharing ideas across the organisation.

As Smythe summarises it:

Leaders who engage the right groups in everyday decisions and in designing and executing change will benefit both in terms of the quality of decisions and the speed of execution that derives from people who feel ownership of the outcome.