Making Change Happen in Your Organization
by Barry Dym and Harry Hutson

from LEVERAGE, No. 14

Copyright © 2000 Pegasus Communications, Inc. (www.pegasuscom.com). All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from Pegasus Communications, Inc. If you wish to distribute copies of this article, please contact our Permissions Department at 781-398-9700 or permissions@pegasuscom.com.

In "Is Your Organization Ready to Change," LEVERAGE No. 13, the authors discussed the notion of organizational readiness. Here, they discuss specific states of readiness as well as potential interventions.

Interventions timed to the readiness of people and organizations stand a much better chance of succeeding. Good timing—which means that interventions fit the distinctive needs and climate of an organization at a particular time—is especially vital during the introduction of change strategies. But applying the idea of readiness, like ideas of timing and rhythm, lends itself to vagueness and platitudes: "If you've got it, you've got it." We think it is possible to learn good timing. To help teach it, we have divided readiness into three distinct and familiar "states," each requiring specific kinds of interventions.

Three States of Organizational Readiness
The three states of readiness are (1) Forays, which are changes in progress that either have not come to fruition or are not yet sufficiently recognized to exert a strong influence on the whole organization; (2) Responsive States of Readiness, such as curiosity, receptiveness, and determination; and (3) Unstable States of Readiness, like confusion, instability, anxiety, and crisis.

This three-fold categorization gives options. It allows us to design interventions with specific states of readiness in mind. Then, if the intervention shows signs of failure, we can look to the other states for guidance. This transforms the development of change strategies from guesswork into an empirical process.

Forays
No matter how rigidly or bureaucratically organized a system is, there always are changes afoot; people who are trying to improve things. Their efforts are what we call forays.

We, as change agents, must learn to see these forays for what they are: tentative, incomplete moves that people make to improve their situation. Their efforts literally are the forays from one way of thinking or acting into another way.

Individually, forays may look like this: You wake feeling optimistic about a project that has been plaguing you and you work effectively that day. But the next day, you can't maintain your assertiveness in the face of your boss's withering stare. Your optimism is suddenly gone. Organizationally, forays may look like this: Within an entire division that slugs its way through the work day in a bored, lethargic fashion, there is a small group that pushes to see how much it can do and designs new ways to do it better and faster.

If we can learn to see these kinds of forays and then begin to help them grow, using the momentum of people's own energies, then we have hold of the most powerful change agent possible. We think there are at least five ways—applied sequentially—of capturing and encouraging a foray: (1) acknowledge the foray; (2) highlight the foray's direction; (3) engage the foray (remember they sometimes require unexpected responses); (4) assume the foray is here to stay—treat them as though they are the rule, not the exception; (5) support the foray until it can stand on its own (be persistent!).

Forays happen naturally in the people and systems we're trying to change, so they offer the best chance of long-term success. If, for some reason, you can't find forays to support substantial change, turn to the straightforward and simple interventions of Responsive States.

Responsive States of Readiness
Responsive States include curiosity, receptiveness, urgency, and determination. When people are curious or receptive, you have essentially been invited to intervene and there is little to lose.

1. Curiosity. People who are curious often wonder what's out there that they haven't paid attention to. They have a general itch that keeps them continually wondering if they have a problem, or if a problem is just over the horizon. Intervention: Offer information or alternatives and don't push. Future scenario planning can be ideal for expanding the field of vision.

2. Receptivity. When receptive, people are open-minded. They have identified a problem but don't yet have a solution, and are asking to be told what can be done. Intervention: Narrow the field by presenting a few strategies to the organization with clear recommendations about how to choose among them. Also, offer pros and cons as well as preferences backed by experience.

3. Urgency. When there is urgency, such as a sudden downturn in business or a missed deadline, there frequently is a strong, perceived need to do something. Intervention: Make clear, decisive suggestions and recommend solutions. At this stage, multiple suggestions will only frustrate.

4. Determination. When determined, people have identified a problem, know a specific solution is required, and are anxious to act. Intervention: Provide technical assistance—either informational or process-oriented. This is a moment for project plans and an orientation toward deliverables, accountabilities, and due dates.

Unstable States
Physical scientists have demonstrated that systems in disequilibrium are vulnerable to change. Individuals and groups whose "lives" are disrupted find themselves confused and helpless. When anxiety stretches our ability to cope with even ordinary matters, we reach out for almost any way to get oriented. We become alert for people who can help us, and we pay attention to thoughts, strategies, and feelings that had been buried and forgotten during stable times. By timing interventions to unstable states, we substantially increase their chances of success.

1. Confusion. At work, we become confused and disoriented more often than we let on. We might sense something is off but don't know what it is or what to do. Intervention: Name and affirm the confusion. Instead of rapidly resolving the confusion to mollify the anxiety, frame it as a source of potential energy. Get people together and give them permission to wonder out loud what is going on. Potentially creative thoughts will emerge—forays that can be noted and supported. Or curiosity and urgency may emerge—a Responsive State calling for direct responses.

2. Anxiety. Anxiety combines confusion with worry, and it draws people inward-away from colleagues, realistic evaluation, and collaboration. Intervention: Name—don't ignore—the anxiety. Otherwise, people will be unable to concentrate on thinking, planning, and problem solving. It helps to draw out both what people fear for themselves and for the organization. Once anxieties are recognized and vented, people can get down to work.

3. Panic. When people panic, they lose their capacity for practical problem-solving. Panic also can be contagious—it can spread to others like a grass fire on the prairie. Intervention: This is a time for leadership to step forward to contain the panic and normalize the process. For example, they might suggest that during any creative enterprise—say the introduction of a new technology—people are often fearful. The challenge is to remain calm and to share thoughts, both practical and impractical, that can become the seeds of creative solutions.

The Value of Readiness
The nature of interconnections and interactions that we know as systems would dictate that a system can be entered at any point. But there are two extremely good reasons to specifically time interventions to the readiness of people and organizations.

The first reason is that we can avoid the resistance that meets and cripples so much program implementation. Each state of readiness provides opportunities to manage or bypass resistance. To manage it, focus on Responsive States. To bypass it, focus on Unstable States and Forays.

The second reason for effectively timing interventions is so we can piggyback on the people and projects that have already demonstrated an interest in and a capacity for innovation. That is, we can more easily identify, support, and amplify the range of Forays.

Either way, by focusing on timing and fit of interventions, we are more prepared to meet the readiness of others when and where it emerges. This "fit" is a key variable in determining the success of our change efforts.

Barry Dym, PhD, is a nationally recognized teacher, lecturer, practitioner, and author. Harry Hutson, PhD, is vice president of human resources at Global Knowledge Network. This article is adapted from "Utilizing States of Organizational Readiness," by Barry Dym and Harry Hutson, OD Practitioner, Vol. 29/No. 2, 1997.