ARTICLES
& REPORTS
Organizational Innovation
About
Innovation Network
- O r g a n i z a t i o n a l _ I n n o v a t i o n -
Bob Phillips
One of the
speakers for Convergence '95 seemed especially
appropriate -- here we were taking a great new initiative
for transformation thinking and speaking to us was Doug
Englebart, known as the patron saint of the computer
industry, inventor of the mouse and pioneer of Arpanet/
Internet and groupware. I found myself thinking maybe we
had leapfrogged the dreadful 80s and some of the
creativity and hope of the 60s were back with us again.
But, maybe that's too much to read into one keynote
address.
Doug pointed out the irony of his fame as an inventor. He
does not see himself primarily as an inventor of tools,
but as the weaver of concepts and originator of
possibilities of the intellect and the spirit. He
unfolded for us the approach of whole-system
augmentation, the importance of the improvement
infrastructure, and the potential of "improvement
communities." He talked not just about what can be
done, but also about how we need to set about doing it.
There is change ahead: how are we best to facilitate it?
His speech framed some issues that I, also, am concerned
with: how to make innovation happen ... how to change the
way people work and think. The framework for these issues
was illustrated by three levels of improvement activity:
Level A -- people concerned with the process of doing
work (or "real work" as they are prone to call
it).
Level B -- people concerned with improving the processes
of Level A.
Level C -- people concerned with improving the
improvement process.
Cs invent tools and techniques for Bs to use to effect
improvement in the processes being done by As. It is the
C people that Doug Englebart is targeting as the members
of his improvement communities. They are also the stuff
of the Innovative Thinking Network: they are us.
Having an Effect
How do we as Cs, as agents of change, position ourselves
with the targets of change to maximize the chance of
change -- improvement -- happening? This question applies
to the C people, as they attempt to persuade the B people
-- the process engineers -- to adopt new tools and
approaches. It applies equally to the B people as they
attempt to deploy new processes in the "real
world."
In each of these cases, we, as agents of change, are
attempting to enable the targets of change to make use of
new tools, new techniques, new methods, new attitudes. In
each case we are likely to be facing targets of change
who may believe that they have appropriate methods for
carrying out their business. In each case, if we are good
at our job, we have a framework for changing activities
which reveals possibilities, questions assumptions,
uncovers hidden connections, and generally promotes
useful innovation. How should we present this cornucopia
of delights?
Frames of Reference
The temptation is to frame our new insights in the way
that we see them: as a revelation of the inadequacies of
the old way of doing things and a framework of new
possibilities. This temptation is especially powerful
when the advocated change involves the excitement of new
technology. However, if we give into this temptation, we
are approaching the business of change from the point of
view of the change agent, not from the point of view of
the target of change.
Consider, for example, what it must be like for an A
person to be confronted with the evangelical enthusiasm
of a B person bent on change and improve- ment ...
especially if the person has been brought in by a senior
manager who has decided that it is time for change. At
the very least, the As are facing change and the need to
learn something new. Most likely, they will be rendered
incompetent: processes they have been comfortable with
for years are going to be revised and replaced with
unfamiliar processes. The A person moves from being an
old hand, an expert, to being a neophyte. That does not
feel good.
The chances are that I -- as an A person and the target
of change -- know that the current state of affairs are
not entirely wonderful and have ideas about what should
be changed. I may think we need a particular new tool or
a system used by a competitor.
Lead Us Not Into Temptation
The B people who come into my workplace may have already
thought through my ideas and know that they don't provide
a complete solution. The temptation for the B people is
to show me why my solution is wrong or incomplete. Bs are
generally anxious to demonstrate their value and
expertise, and justify their fees.
If Bs, the change agents, give into that temptation, they
are guilty of squandering their best opportunity for
effecting change: the opportunity to partner with the
targets of change in their own frame of reference.
Collaborating with the targets of change is an
opportunity to validate and reinforce their perceptions,
even if they might be limited in scope, and help them
recognize the full cost implications of the status quo,
which is one of the most powerful motivating forces for
change.
Silence Is Golden
What should change agents do? Keep their theories to
themselves. In the discipline of change management,
theory is a means to interpret and understand the way our
fellow human beings are likely to act, rather than a
means to predict and control future behavior. If we are
worthy of the challenge of being asked to help in a
change process, then we will come with some sort of
change framework or philosophy that shows us the steps
needed in the change process. If we keep this theory to
ourselves, then we can meet the targets of change on
their own ground, validate their experience and their
proposals for change, and be ready to extend suggestions
when they are ready for it.
My favorite framework has seven pieces in it -- the seven
elements of successful change as preached by Ernst &
Young LLP:
o Awareness building
o Vision setting
o Readiness assessment
o Transition planning
o Transition management
o Pathfinder projects
o Infrastructure building
What do I do when I encounter an A person who *knows*
that a particular tool is what he needs to make the
needed radical improvement? I do *not* lay out my
consultancy wares to show this hapless individual that
there is no chance of the tool working unless there is a
vision for a changed process, an infrastructure in place,
etc. I do not say this, even though my experience tells
me that it is true.
Patience, and Its Just Rewards
What I do is start where my client is. I explore what
projects there are in this person's world which could be
used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the new tool. I
ask for clarity about the change to be expected from the
use of the new tool. I ask "Who is the target group
whom we wish to impress with the effectiveness of the
tool?" And I help to make the tool work as best as
it possibly can.
As the results come in, I point out that we are acting as
a pathfinder for the use of this new tool. I ask my
collaborator to consider how the process has changed as a
result of using the new tool (which will probably result
in his considering for the first time the idea of a
visible process). I work with him to plan to leverage the
lessons from this one pathfinder project to the wider
community -- the target group. I invite him to consider
what we need to do to make this group of people aware of
the need for change, so that they will be receptive to
the lessons. I may even press for the articulation of a
vision of what can be done with this process.
Over time, I have revealed my whole hand -- the framework
for change which is my justification for having put
myself forward as a change agent in the first place. But
my collaborator has discovered this framework with me, as
and when it had some relevance to his frame of reference.
He has not had it thrust down his throat.
This is not deception. It is confidence. It is the
confidence of being able to use theory, rather than
having to sell it. It is the confidence that will enable
us in ITN not just to have the ideas needed by
Englebart's improvement communities but also to use them
to some effect.
The distinction between interpretive theory and
predictive theory has been explored in depth by Jurgen
Habermas, a philosopher whose work deserves much wider
circulation. ("Knowledge and Human Interests,"
Beacon Press, Boston, 1972, is worthy of careful study.)
Bob Phillips with Ernst & Young LLP can be reached at
215-448-5890 or FAX: 215-448-4069