People don't necessarily need more change management.
They need better ways of thinking about change.
That distinction became much clearer when I ran a practical Change Lab with colleagues, using the Change Management Hub I had been developing.
I could have spent the session explaining models.
Instead, people worked on real changes.
They mapped impacts, challenged assumptions, diagnosed what might actually be happening and decided what they could do next.
Watching that happen taught me at least as much as delivering it.
Here are five things that stayed with me.
1. Real problems beat fictional case studies
There is a reason training courses use fictional organisations.
They behave themselves.
Their stakeholders fit neatly into matrices. Their problems have been thoughtfully designed to illustrate the learning objective. Nobody suddenly says:
"Actually, that isn't how it works here."
Real organisations are less cooperative.
Which is precisely why they are better for learning.
Once people started working with live changes, the conversation changed. They knew the people involved. They understood the history. They disagreed about what was really happening.
Good.
That disagreement exposed assumptions.
It also meant that the change tools had to survive contact with reality rather than merely produce a satisfying workshop output.
I came away much more convinced that change capability is built by practising change on actual change.
2. People understand impact when they can see it
Change can sound terribly abstract.
Stakeholder impacts. Readiness. Adoption. Resistance.
Put a real person or group in front of people and ask:
What actually changes for them?
Suddenly it becomes concrete.
They start doing something they didn't do before.
Something familiar disappears.
Their workload increases.
They lose a shortcut.
They need a new skill.
They become dependent on another team.
Perhaps something that once gave them status or confidence is no longer important.
That is when change stops being an implementation plan and starts becoming human.
One of the most useful lessons for me was that people don't need to become expert change practitioners to start seeing this.
They mainly need the invitation to look.
3. Asking a better question can be more useful than teaching another model
One question kept proving its worth:
What else could be true?
People are resistant.
What else could be true?
They need training.
What else could be true?
The communication isn't working.
What else could be true?
It creates just enough doubt to interrupt the rush towards an intervention.
Perhaps people understand the change but don't agree with it.
Perhaps they are perfectly capable but have no capacity.
Perhaps the issue isn't resistance at all.
That small question probably did more useful work than some much more elaborate pieces of methodology.
I've become increasingly interested in this.
We sometimes behave as if expertise means having better answers.
Perhaps part of expertise is knowing when the first answer is too easy.
4. People learn from each other, not just from whoever is standing at the front
This became particularly obvious in the table exercises.
The valuable conversations were not always between me and the participants.
They were between participants.
Someone would describe a problem and another person would recognise it from somewhere completely different.
One discipline would see something another had missed.
An assumption would be challenged.
A different interpretation would appear.
That connects strongly with work I did years ago around team mental models and organisational absorptive capacity.
Knowledge doesn't become organisational simply because individuals possess it.
People need enough shared understanding to work together, and ideas need ways of crossing professional and cultural boundaries.
In other words, sometimes the most important thing happening in a learning session isn't the teaching.
It is the bridge being built between the people in the room.
That has implications for how we design capability-building.
Perhaps we should spend slightly less time asking what knowledge we want to transfer and slightly more time asking who needs to learn together.
5. The real test begins after the workshop
This may be the biggest lesson.
A good workshop can be misleading.
People participate.
The exercises work.
There is energy in the room.
Someone says they enjoyed it.
Everyone leaves with sticky notes.
Success.
Except, of course, that the organisation is waiting outside.
Meetings resume. Deadlines return. Priorities compete. The clever tool someone used on Tuesday has to be remembered three weeks later when a real problem appears.
That is where learning either becomes capability or quietly evaporates.
Some of the Hub thinking has started to be used, which is encouraging. But I have become much less interested in whether people remember the names of the tools than whether some of the thinking reappears in their work.
Does somebody ask about impact earlier?
Do they challenge an assumption?
Do they distinguish capacity from commitment?
Do they ask what evidence they actually have?
Do they try something small and learn from it?
That is a much harder thing to measure than attendance.
It is also much closer to what matters.
So what did I really teach?
I'm not entirely sure I taught change management.
At least, I hope that wasn't all I taught.
I think the more useful ambition was to give people permission and confidence to look at change differently.
To slow down before diagnosing.
To see the same change through another person's eyes.
To challenge apparently obvious explanations.
To test rather than assume.
And to recognise when they need deeper expertise.
That brings me back to something that has run through this whole series.
The purpose of organisational change capability isn't to create an organisation full of amateur change managers.
It isn't even to make everybody fluent in change methodology.
It is to make good change thinking increasingly normal.
Perhaps, eventually, nobody notices that a project manager is applying change management when they ask whose work is affected.
Nobody notices that a manager is applying change management when they distinguish a capacity issue from resistance.
Nobody notices that a team is applying change management when it challenges an assumption before acting.
They are simply doing their jobs well.
And if I had to choose one lesson from building the Hub and then trying to teach the thinking behind it, it would be this:
Change capability has probably arrived when people stop needing to call it change management.
Comments
Post a Comment