17 paradoxes on change

6 CHANGE WITH IMPACT. THOUGHTS AND PARADOXES.

Action

Behaviour, activity, central term in American behaviourism from the early 20th century where an action is an organised and focused pattern of movements; later extended to also comprise facial expressions, gestures and written or oral statements.

IMPLEMENT CONSULTING GROUP 7

A couple of years ago, a knowledge-intensive Scandinavian

company surveyed its employees’ familiarity with the

company’s strategy and the extent to which they agreed

that the strategy had been implemented. The responses

could be grouped into three well-defined categories. Those

who believed that the strategy was both familiar to all and

implemented, those who were familiar with the strategy,

but did not think it had been implemented, and finally those

who were not familiar with it and, thus, were not qualified

to comment on its imple mentation. The first group was top

management. The second consisted of the members of the

project group which had been responsible for developing and

implementing the strategy. The third group included, by and

large, all remaining employees in the company – and this is not

a joke!

This example brings us to an interesting point in relation to the

burning platform, which is a core concept in classic change

management. The analogy originates from an oil drilling rig

that caught fire, and where the only survivors were those who

defied all regulations and leapt off the platform into a foaming

sea 40 metres below. When asked afterwards why they had

jumped, they answered that they felt they had no alternative.

In a positive sense, this is the situation we ideally want to

create in any change project. When everyone can see that

there is only one way to go, you ensure both the direction and

pace of the project – or do you?

In an ideal world maybe, but not in reality. Therefore, we will

venture to challenge the sequence and scope of the built-

in logic; take no action until a “sense of urgency” prevails

throughout the organisation. Above all, it is utopian to believe

Action as a means of communication in change processes


that it is possible, all in one go, to instil exactly the same

picture of what is important throughout the organisation.

Change projects have come to a standstill before they ever got

started on that account.

There are situations where action is the most direct or only

viable way of creating awareness and changing attitudes.

Within e.g. Lean, there are many examples of small simple

activities having created tangible pictures of the potentials

offered by change and, hence, of having acted as a catalyst

for the subsequent roll-out across the entire organisation.

Conversely, there are plenty of examples of compa nies

agitating for, threate ning and appealing for change inces santly

for years without even remotely achieving the same effect.

Finally, a “reverse start” offers a far more reflective approach

to the concept of importance. Certainly, importance is a

precondition for success, but the path to it is winding, and

there will undoubtedly be many different perceptions and

explana tions of what is important. Here, it is crucial to make

room for doubt and, thus, make change meaningful to as many

as possible.

We know it sounds trivial, but it is vital to seek and ensure

appreciation of the importance of change – in the organisa-

tion and among all involved. Not top management’s explicit

priorities, nor a “burning” necessity, but purely and simply

the individual’s understanding that what we are talking about

really matters. This often entails that we will have to modify

what we are focusing on and talking about.

The good news is that our focus will probably be more “right”

in relation to the organisation’s strategy, mission and vision,

and the best news is that what we end up focusing on stands

an excellent chance of actually being implemented.

IMPLEMENT CONSULTING GROUP 9IMPLEMENT CONSULTING GROUP 9

Action

When you initiate action early in a change process, you’ll be accused of not having done your analysis and planning thoroughly enough – do it anyway!


Agility (from Latin agilis); quick in movement, nimble; mentally quick or acute.

Agility


The speed of change is ever increasing. Consequently, we must

be far more agile to cope today than just a few years ago. This

is a fact which is dealt with in two recommendable books:

Fast Strategy by Yves Doz and The Upside of Turbulence by

Donald Sull. The overall conclusion of the books, to which we

fully agree, is an increased need for: 1) strategic sensitivity to

change in our surrounding world, 2) common overall objectives

and 3) the ability to reallocate resources flexibly across

organisational boundaries.

This is easier said than done since we are up against strong

forces: Above all, the human nature and an antiquated, but

well-established and, thus, safe way of organising ourselves.

Particularly the last part is a hard nut to crack as there are

quite many privileges and just as much prestige at stake.

A good example is the healthcare sector whose self-perception

is based on trade groups and medical specialties. One single

patient pathway easily involves more than 30 different

specialties, departments, functions and trade groups, which

are to interact efficiently to achieve a coherent and positive

experience for the patient. The problem is, however, that no

strategic decision has been made concerning the responsibility

for creating this coherence. The optimal patient pathway is,

consequently, not concretised as KPIs in the departments

involved, and this, together with sharply defined specialist

boundaries, makes it difficult to move around resources across

departments. One dilemma almost stumbles over the other.

Why would the individual doctor e.g. want to focus on all

elements of a patient pathway when he is measured on only a

small part of it? Or why would a department optimise a patient

pathway, which would only result in even more pressure on

We must be agile to survive


that department’s own budget?

An obvious solution is to change the organisational structure

together with the management structure, so that these are

built around the needs and overall pathways of the patients.

Similarly, it would be obvious to think in broad terms and make

the practice sector and municipal home care form part of the

same organisational and management structure as the hospital

sector. Most people in the sector can agree on this. The basis,

however, for taking this step is simply non-existent as it is

today. As the above examples illustrate, it is not a strategic

focus on the needs of the patients that prevails, rather much

too narrow financial, political and professional considerations.

As is, by the way, the case in many other organisations, private

as well as public.

The speed of change makes entirely new demands on

how we organise ourselves. That is why Doz and Sull hit us

where it hurts the most. For strategic agility is inevitable to

survival, but also contrary to nature – both at a human and an

organisational level.


When you design and implement a truly agile organisation, you disrupt well-established power bases and privileges, ultimately also your own – do it anyway!

Agility


Atmosphere (sentiment) i.a. means the air or climate in a specific place, in a specific room. In continuation of this meaning, the term is often used metaphorically about the atmosphere present in a specific place or the atmosphere which surrounds a person, object or institution.

Atmosphere


One of our gurus, former Harvard professor and author of

the book The Trusted Advisor David Maister, once said: “I’ve

attended the best American and British universities and

business schools and learnt a lot of good stuff. The only thing I

didn’t learn was that the world is full of people...”.

We believe that this is an incredibly precise way of conveying

the difference between theory and practice when people

are to be relocated and organisations developed. In this

connection, there is one key concept in particular we would

like to draw your attention to – atmosphere. Atmosphere is not

a word that occurs as frequently as change management in the

average textbook, probably because many – both researchers

and executives – perceive atmosphere as something

undocumented and uncontrollable that “just arises”. Whether

that atmosphere is good or bad, intense or indifferent is more

a matter of chance than the result of conscious action.

But can atmosphere be controlled? Yes, it can. If in doubt, just

think of all those times you created the wrong atmosphere

unintentionally. We have all been there – it is worringly

easy. But if that is the case, then it must also be possible to

create the right atmosphere. And note that we are referring

on purpose to the right atmosphere rather than a positive

atmosphere! It might just as well be a serious, energetic,

despairing or even an outright crisis atmosphere. It all depends

on what we want to achieve.

Two core elements are involved in controlling atmosphere.

First of all, there is the preparation and planning of a script

and tools suitable for the situation. What atmosphere are

we after, and how do we create it deliberately? E.g. through

Control the atmosphere to create business


dialogue, involvement and change of pace. Secondly, there is

the ability to seize the unforeseeable – that will always arise no

matter how much we plan – and use it positively. Many years of

experience in carrying out large change projects have taught

us that carefully orchestrated “disturbances” are a highly

effective tool when creating the right atmosphere.

Try to recall the prevailing atmosphere in a few decisive

situations at e.g. a board meeting, management meeting, in

the strategy project or at the general staff meeting that either

went well or badly. Would they have turned out differently

if the atmosphere had been intense rather than relaxed, or

humorous rather than serious? Yes, most likely, which makes

it twice as frustrating that atmosphere is such an intangible to

many of us who hail from the traditional education system.

Here, we have learnt that when we are to communicate

something or make an important decision, we need to work

focusedly and systematically on producing well-structured

reports, often based on a rational problem analysis and

subsequent conclusion. This is also both appropriate and

important because it is the very basis for our credibility.

However, it is just not enough to know WHAT we need to say.

We also need to know exactly WHY and HOW to say it. We

have to get used to the fact that it is necessary to allocate

resources to preparing the tools that support the purpose

of the presentation. Otherwise, we risk standing – once

again – in the PowerPoint syndrome’s gloomy auditorium

where we ourselves have reduced the people we are trying

to communicate with to impersonal silhouettes. Where is the

atmosphere in that?


When you work with atmosphere and deliberately create “appropriate disturbances”, you’ll probably be feeling awkward and way out of your comfort zone – do it anyway!

Atmosphere


Authentic (from Greek authentikos: ‘truthfulness, reliability’); genuine; true; trustworthy; reliable.

Authenticity


The authenticmanager makesmistakes

If, as a manager, you are brutally honest about a strategic

change, you risk that parts of, or the entire basis for, the

change is called into question, or that it becomes evident

that there are things you do not know about the forthcoming

change. You also risk creating unease in the organisation,

and, not least, you run the risk of putting yourself and your

authority as a manager on the line.

To that we have only one thing to say: Do it anyway. Because

authenticity, or having the courage to be true to yourself and

your surroundings, is a prerequisite for building trust in the

change.

So, what is trust? The author of The Trusted Advisor, former

Harvard professor David Maister, has introduced a simple

equation for what builds trust. According to the equation,

trust is a function of credibility, reliability, intimacy and self-

orientation. The equation corresponds well with our own

experience of which top managers are capable of building

trust in the changes they are spear heading. And, moreover, it

is a brilliant illustration of trust vanishing like dew before the

sun if credibility, reliability or intimacy is absent, or the self-

orientation is too pronounced.

No doubt many ambitious managers would be surprised to

learn that they do not enjoy the trust of those around them

in spite of their professional competences, in spite of keeping

all agreements they make and in spite of taking the lead in

change projects. If they lack empathy or seek to downplay

that their commit ment is driven by personal career objectives

and stock options, their inten tions will always be called into

question.


This failure to appreciate what trust is may be the reason why

there are still quite many managers who apparently believe

they are better than other people. We have all met them, either

privately where they constantly entertain us about their own

outstanding merits, or at work where they carefully guard a

reputation as the omniscient leader who is never wrong. In

both situa tions, we are left wondering how in the world they

managed to get as far as they have. Fortunately, this race of

managers is on the verge of extinction. We live in a knowledge

society, and no matter how disagreeable it may be to admit,

it is a fact that many employees are both smarter and more

competent than the manager.

Try to think about it. You are an emplo yee of a large company

facing a major restructuring process initiated by management.

You can see a number of uncertainties and risks, and,

hopefully, also a few upsides. Who would you trust most?

The mana ger who brushes off your doubts by signalling total

control or the one who addresses the uncertainties by coming

clean about the fact that he himself does not have all the

answers, and that he is well aware that the plan may not be

perfect, but is as good as it gets with the knowledge currently

available.

Managers who succeed in creating change are honest and

humble towards the scope of the change project and – not

least – towards the consequen ces for those affected by the

change. 2,000 years ago, Jesus said: “Whoever exalts himself

shall be humbled; whoever humbles himself shall be exalted”.

Food for thought – not least for those of us with managerial

responsi bilities.


Authenticity

When you are honest about the mistakes you’ll inevitably be making, you risk putting yourself and your authority as a leader on the line – do it anyway!


Something or someone taking on a new shape, character, behaviour etc.

Change


Change for change’s sake

Never change a winning team is a philosophy that many of us

support. We rarely question its truth because it makes so much

sense at an intuitive level. In the world of sports, countless

top coaches swear by it. For instance, this has been Morten

Olsen’s mantra for his entire career as chief coach of the

Danish national soccer team, with concepts such as typerende

(typicality) and automatismer (automatisms) creeping into our

vocabulary.

At Implement, we have always had issues with repetition.

It was, therefore, an exhilarating experience when Freek

Vermeulen recently visited, and we had the opportunity to

hear his lecture “Change for Change’s Sake”. Vermeulen,

along with Donald Sull and several others, is part of a group

of brilliant up-and-coming professors from London Business

School who have challenged and inspired us in a wide range

of areas within strategic transformation. The message of his

lecture, which can be found in an article of the same name

in Harvard Business Review, June 2010, is that it is actually

extremely dangerous for an organisation only to make changes

in times of crisis.

Rather, Vermeulen argues that every company should

implement organisational changes periodically, even when

there is no apparent reason to do so. This is because the

process is, among other things, a good way to create new

networks and boost employees’ understanding and knowledge

of customers, products and services. Another interesting

phenomenon is that old connections and relations survive

across new formal chains of command, thereby functioning as

an efficient substitute for the matrix organisations that look so

good on paper, but rarely work in practice. As they disappear


over time, reorganisation becomes necessary again. And it is

based on this line of thinking that he introduces the fantastic

management concept of the “serial changer”, which obviously

should be seen as a positive thing in this context.

The bad news in all of this is that uncertainty and turbulence

are here to stay, along with much higher demands for

adaptability from all of us. The good news is that greater

uncertainty has a direct correlation to greater opportunities

if we are capable of seizing them. And the really good news

is that we can improve our skills in this area if we constantly

exercise our change muscles. Doing this will help us avoid

managerial complacency, dependency on specific individuals

and failures in communication when it really matters.

We are not experts in soccer, but when it comes to getting

people and organisations to produce results, we definitely have

an opinion. Which is why we are really looking forward to the

first top coach who has the guts to shuffle the starting lineup

and change the playing style, not when the team is suffering,

but also – and especially – when things are going well. Blind

faith in “typical” mechanisms and “automatisms” will not win

games in the major leagues. Your opponents are simply too

competent for that…


When you plan for and lead change initiatives, their strategic rationale and your own personal motives for carrying them through will be questioned – do it anyway!

Change


Complexity (from Latin complex + -ity). Complicated, intricate, involved, tangled, knotty.

Complexity


Problems can be complicated – solutions cannot

In his book The User Illusion (Mærk Verden), the journalist and

author Tor Nørretranders concludes that the band width of

our consciousness is approx. 16 bits per second. Whether you

agree with him in this exact definition is unimportant. The key

point is that we are only capable of processing a small fraction

of the information we are constantly bombarded with.

And the information flow is ever increasing. We live in a

complex society in which we orientate ourselves in many

different directions and must relate to hundreds of different

possibilities. Each of these possibilities is rarely unambiguous,

but has nuances and can be interpreted in different ways.

Furthermore, it is not merely the surrounding world’s

complexity and uncertainty we observe, but also our own.

Often, a natural result is that we formulate extremely complex

plans comprising all imaginable details and reservations.

However, these are not viable because in the wilderness of

items on the agenda and activities, we lose purpose, overview

and energy.

It is complexity times two, and that is a challenge. Too

much complexity is simply paralysing. Take for instance the

implementation of a new strategy or the execution of a large

reorganisation. Here, the success rate is directly inversely

proportional to the complexity of the solution. Therefore, we

encourage you to reduce complexity for the simple reason that

it strongly inhibits any form of initiative and drive! That being

said, do not bring out the axe before you have recognised

and understood the complexity. Simplification without

prerequisites is nothing more than an expression of the same

cocksure stupidity which far too often rears its ugly head, e.g.

when 75% of the population after two drawn games in a row


believe that they can do a better job in the role of national

soccer coach than the one actually appointed.

It is a capital sin to underestimate the scope of the assignment

when working with change. It takes 60-80 repetitions before a

behavioural change turns into a habit. For this reason alone, to

start running twice a week is sufficiently complex to a person

with an average willpower. Remember this the next time we

ask an organisation to do something different than usual –

especially because complexity increases exponentially with the

number of people involved.

Bearing this in mind, there are several obvious areas to work

with when it comes to reducing complexity. We can break

down large changes into sequences of smaller ones.

Thus, uncertainty is reduced, the organisation’s change

capacity is increased, and we reduce inner complexity which

makes us more proficient in handling outer complexity.

Simplicity can be forced into the change by focusing on a

few, but decisive must-win battles. Simultaneously, we can

try to steer the organisation’s expectations of what is to take

place before, during and after the change by constantly being

clear-cut in relation to the change’s impact targets and the

measurements supporting them.

It is difficult, but not impossible. “I believe that this nation

should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade

is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him

safely to the earth”, John F. Kennedy said in 1961. Everybody

understood this, and everybody also understood that there

was so much more to it – not least when Neil Armstrong eight

years later made the dream come true.


Complexity

When you introduce simple solutions to complex problems, your understanding of the underlying factors causing the problems will be questioned – do it anyway!


Competence (from French compétence, from Latin competentia); ability; skill. The expression is used within the areas of pedagogy and psychology about knowledge and skills, e.g. competence in problem solving, in reading and in mathematics.

Core competences


The global competition has changed the premises for how

tomorrow’s companies should be managed and organised.

There is a need for a break with the traditional hierarchy and

kindergarten management where we shift from a reproductive

to an innovative focus. We estimate that today at least 20-30%

of the employees in large Scandinavian companies are involved

in developing the company. Nevertheless, the majority of these

companies are organised in the same manner as they were 30

years ago with too many managers and too much hierarchy

and an almost non-existent environment for fostering

innovation and change.

For many years, identifying a company’s core competences

has formed the basis for creating a competitive edge. This was

also the case 10 years ago, but in the innova tive companies

of the future, the core competences are not explicit, and they

change continuously as the company develops. Thus, it makes

much more sense to talk about “the employees possessing

core competences” – the ones who make a difference in the

company and who possess knowledge which can be brought

into play.

Thus, in the innovative and change-oriented company,

identifying these employees is of vital importance.

Experience proves that they pursue personal and professional

development, and they appreciate the feeling of being

part of the winning team. They appreciate a good salary,

but professional and intellectual challenges and interesting

role models in the organisation are what is instrumental

in retaining them. They want to learn, and they are fully

aware that their value depends on the development of own

competences and on their network. But they also want to

Spot and spoil your core competent employees


“see a sense of purpose” in their work. The positions and

values of the employees must be reflected in those of the

company. Companies with no idea, differentiators and values

do not attract these employees. Employees possessing core

competences in innovative companies do not need a job

description. They want to solve tasks and “make a difference”.

Employees matching this description are hard to find. Most

managers are aware that all change projects and the majority

of the development in a company are led by the same limited

force who are able to rise above day-to-day operations and

step in whenever necessary. Thus, the principal task of every

manager is to expand this troop. Either by recruiting more

of this type of employee or – and this is probably our most

important point – by identifying and spoiling those who are

already in the company.

For the truth is that these are the employees we, as managers,

often do not pay much attention to. We take their top

performances for granted, while we turn our eyes towards

the employees who shout the loudest. As an example, one of

our employees was for many years a customer with a large

insurance company. He had never notified a single claim, never

got anything stolen and never heard anything from them –

besides invoices and, of course, an annual mandatory letter on

premium increases. Is it any wonder that he changed insurance

company when he was presented with another offer?

Apparently, for all of a sudden he received more attention

from his old insurance company than he had ever been given

altogether in the 10 previous years.

It was just too late – just as is often the case with our best

employees when they one day suddenly hand in a notice of

resignation. Simply because we did not pay enough attention

to them or had the courage to openly show that some

employees (or customers for that matter) ARE more important

than others.


Core competences

When you publicly acknowledge specific cultural traits, behaviour and employees for making a difference, others will be offended and others again will disagree – do it anyway!


Concept that within certain branches of science simply means change, while in others it indicates a change (sometimes positive) towards a more specific goal.

Development


In the large globally oriented Scandinavian organisations,

an interesting pattern has emerged. If we analyse how the

employees use their time in the Scandinavian part of the

organisation, we will find that at least half of their time is spent

on development tasks which are often carried out in the form

of a project. For these organisations, development has become

the primary product, while projects have become the primary

producing unit. This is a quite new trend, and only the most

skilled organisations have caught on to this and organised their

management and reporting structures accordingly.

In a development organisation, it is – to a much greater

extent than in a line organisation – important to understand

the correlation between the projects and what the company

wants to achieve at a strategic, tactical and operational level.

There is also a need for establishing a system which follows

up on whether the resources allocated to the projects are

used effectively. In other words, an unambiguous governance

structure in relation to the projects is to be ensured.

Projects are one-time tasks where cross-organisational teams

are established from time to time based on the relevant

project. For this to work, it is necessary to establish a new and

different structure making demands on how line managers and

project managers act in relation to each other and on how the

decision-making structure is organised. Otherwise, managers

and project managers will have to establish an approach for

each new project they carry out. This will result in numerous

discussions about who makes which decisions in the project.

In comparison, consider the inefficient scenario if no formal

structure existed in the production where managers and

employees discussed who does what along the way – without

Global organisations of the future must master development


any other noticeable involvement from top management.

Project managers must be assigned more power, whereas

the number of managers in the line must be reduced.

Otherwise, the result will be “congestion in the midfield”,

power struggles and sub-optimisation. Fortunately, there is a

shortage of programme and project managers, so these could

conveniently be recruited internally among the managers who

are no longer needed. This also signals to the organisation

where the value is created. In the development organisation,

it is attractive – both in terms of salary and prestige – to be a

project manager on large, heavy development tasks.

Earlier, development was limited to the development of

products. However, today there is much more potential

in optimising the manner in which the products are sold,

produced and delivered globally. Research shows that it is five

times more cost-effective to use resources on other types of

development than product development. The point is not that

organisations have to stop developing new products. On the

contrary! It merely shows that there is an enormous potential

for those who are capable of expanding the development

environment from product development to comprising the

entire business model.

However, to get to this point, a change in mindset is required

from top management. For it is not only the organisation that

needs to be transformed from operation into development

– it is also the manager. And it is about time, for it has been

some years now since Peter Senge – who coined the learning

organisation concept – stated: “A manager who spends less

than 70% of his time on projects is not in keeping with the

times”.


Development

When you empower your project organisation, the reasons and professional rationale for doing so will be questioned by line management – do it anyway!


Engaged; preoccupied; interested.

Engagement


More than 60 years ago, General George Patton said: “Never

tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do, and they

will surprise you with their ingenuity”. A splendid quotation,

both due to its element of surprise considering Patton’s

background, and because he was far ahead of his time.

In a time where Europe as a whole is drifting down the list

of the world’s richest regions, and our almost constitutional

welfare is under threat, we think it would be refreshing to

turn the conversation to other subjects than productivity,

stress, attrition and early retirement benefits. These are

not unimportant subjects, but we believe they are merely

symptoms of something far more fundamental of which Patton

already in the 1940s approached the core: engagement.

Engagement means everything. Research shows that when we

are engaged, our efficiency, productivity and value creation

increase by a factor of 4 compared to a scenario where we

“just” go to work with no other motivation than making a living.

Viewed in this light, there is no sense in measuring a workday

in hours and minutes, and that is exactly our point. There ARE

only 24 hours a day. On the other hand, there are no limits as

to what we are capable of achieving when we are engaged.

We all know the feeling of forgetting about time and place

because we are passionate about what we do. And what is

most fantastic is that we generate at least the same amount

of energy as we spend in the process. In other words, we are

talking about a sustained source of energy capable of solving

all the above challenges. Does it sound too good to be true?

The answer is no. For even though not much has happened

since Patton, we know what stimulates engagement – namely

Engagement – a source of energy that never dries out


purpose, autonomy and mastery. Then, what can we do?

First and foremost, we must acknowledge the importance of

engagement, and that we can make a difference by assuming

responsibility and taking charge of it. All we say and do

must be saturated with the difference we make – not the

money we can earn – and we must constantly focus on being

exceptionally competent at what we do. At a personal level,

the company also has a great opportunity of creating a better

life and, thus, a better worklife for its employees. And yes, it is

about physical health, but just as much about a mental change

of gears where we simply break away from bad habits that

ruin engagement. We could, for instance, reduce the number

of rules and procedures that create indifference and fear of

decision-making, and we could refuse to accept open phones

and email communication during meetings, which, by the way,

are often way too long.

A recent global survey indicates that only 14% are fully

engaged in their work, and although we plume ourselves

and assume that the percentage is higher in Scandinavia, the

potential is huge. Knowing quite well that we will never reach

100%, a conservative estimate is that we in Scandinavia alone

miss out on more than EUR 50 billion a year in additional value

creation.


Engagement

When you equate seemingly intangible concepts as energy and engagement with financial results, your discernment as a leader will be questioned – do it anyway!


Derives from Latin exsequi, ‘carry out, follow up, put into effect’.

Execution


Is a good strategy which is not executed good enough?

Once, when we were discussing some challenges with a client

in relation to a change project, he said: “The time when the few

could think for the many is history”. Those words keep coming

back to us because we feel that they sum up precisely why

strategies are so difficult to execute.

Having a few bright minds conceive and design the strategy is

the very paradigm on which the classic management consulting

model is based. For both clients and consultancies, the model

has the obvious advantage that the deliverables – typically

in the form of an analysis, synthesis and implementation plan

– can be supplied and assessed individually, and then the

consultants can move on to a new “study”.

The challenge inherent in most strategy projects is, however,

that the reality the strategy has to mesh with is extremely

complex. This means that it will not be possible for a tight

circle of decision-makers to have a full overview of all relevant

aspects and consequences, and also that the implementation

itself will be just as complex. Most organisations are well

aware of that, and those who are not can read numerous

studies telling them that the reason why strategies fail often

comes down to an inability to implement what is otherwise an

excellent strategy – and not because the strategy is at fault.

For many consultancies, ourselves included, this has become a

pretext for inaction. After all, we have done a good job, so the

fact that the strategic recommendations are not followed is

surely the organisation’s own responsibility? Or is it? If people

in the same organisation retained the services of a law firm,

they would probably be rather taken aback if the lawyers

prepared the case in minute detail and then left it to the


organisation itself to get through the court case. That would

be unheard-of since even the best preparation is no substitute

for a skilled lawyer’s legal expertise and experience with court

procedure. Nevertheless, this is precisely the situation many

consultancies leave their clients in. Kitted out with a strategy

plan in their hand, they have to navigate through a reality that is

constantly changing and consequently undermines the original

premises on which the strategy was laid. Whether or not that

seems reasonable, it is at any rate not effective. It is also hardly

ideal if a guaranteed impact is one of the main reasons for

bringing in a professional consultant.

Of course, the brightest minds have to be involved in

developing a good strategy, but then they should also be

involved in ensuring that it is put into practice, including

WHETHER it is even possible at all. This is why we believe that

successful client-consultant relationships will in future comprise

expertise within problem solving, process support and training.

In that way, the basis for rating the consultant’s achievements

will also change from “it is a good plan” to focusing on the

impact of the change – ultimately measured by the actual

bottom line improvement.

To live up to this, it is necessary for all involved parties to be

able to answer yes to a few simple, but very fundamental

questions, e.g.: Does the strategy actually make sense for the

organisation? Dare we involve more of the organisation earlier?

Will this strategy have an impact – also in the short term? Do

we communicate honestly about direction and consequences?

Do we have the right people on board? Have we succeeded

in creating an atmosphere that supports what we want to

achieve?

It calls for courage, persistence and skill. But that is what

it takes to achieve impact. This brings us back to the good

strategy that was never executed. That is just too easy! If a

strategy was not executed – no matter the reason – then it

simply was not good enough.


Execution

Whenever you stop up, re-evaluate or change course, your strategic capabilities and your eligibility as a leader will be questioned – do it anyway!


Focus (from Latin focus ‘fire point’, originally ‘fireplace, hearth’).

Focus


When the conversation turns to the Wall Street crash in 1929,

a picture comes to mind. A black/white photo of one man

buying the shares that everyone else is desperately trying to

dispose of. Many imagine him to be John D. Rockefeller, and

that he was brave enough to go against the tide because

he unconditionally trusted the fundamental strength of his

own business concept and, hence, did not care about what

everyone else did. In fact, it seems it was the vice president

of NYSE (New York Stock Exchange), Richard Whitney, and

the motive somewhat another. However, this does not actually

change much about the point: In times of crisis, opportunities

arise. This, of course, requires that we are capable of seizing

them.

Even though this makes good sense, we have heard it all

before. And what are we then to do? Firstly, we must take

a look at ourselves and forget how lucky or unlucky we

are in relation to external factors such as market, industry

and financial crisis. The fact is that this is far less important

than how good we are at constantly being focused and at

improving our core business.

And focus is, indeed, a keyword. In his book From Good to

Great, Jim Collins applies the story about the fox and the

hedgehog originating from a parable by the Greek poet

Archilochus: “The fox knows many things, however, the

hedgehog knows one big thing”. The fox is a cunning creature,

able to devise a myriad of complex strategies for sneaky

attacks on the hedgehog. The hedgehog, on the other hand,

curls into a prickly ball of sharp spikes pointing outward in

all directions and, thus, simplifies a complex world into one

organisational idea – a fundamental principle – that unites and

In times of crisis, opportunities arise for the focused companies


controls everything. The point is that no matter how promising

the fox’s strategies may seem, the hedgehog’s simple and

focused strategy always wins.

The story, obviously, oversimplifies a complex issue, but

nevertheless has a good moral and is easily understandable.

It is also supported by several results from various surveys

across industries and geographic borders indicating that

the value of a company is proportional to the ability to

grow organically. An ability which, as the surveys also show,

is dependent on the development of the efficiency of the

core business. Hedgehogs do what they are good at and

continuously develop it towards perfection, otherwise they will

not survive – which is exactly the same for companies.

This makes us return to John D. Rockefeller (Richard Whitney)

and the others who remained calm, while everyone else

panicked. They certainly were brave. But, as a matter of fact,

the rationale only was that they were true to their fundamental

concept. They simply continued doing what they believed to

be right and came through it strengthened. We, therefore,

urge all focused and hard-working companies to stay focused.

This is the time where your competitors are shaky, and where

the opportunities arise that can further strengthen your core

business after the dust has settled.


When you insist on focusing on what you truly believe is the unique core that differentiates your company from your competitors, you will be accused of oversimplifying things – do it anyway!

Focus


Growth (an increase in something over time. The term is used within social sciences, natural sciences and mathematics).

Growth


One of the visions for Europe as a whole is to be in the

absolute top within growth entrepreneurs. This is not a bad

vision at all as the very foundation for Europe’s status as

welfare societies and one of the world’s richest regions is

that we continuously develop our ability to create value. This

applies at all levels – as individuals, as companies as nations

and as a region.

When we have reservations about this vision, it is not the

intentions of the vision that are at fault. It is more a reflection

of what contributes most to an innovative society ready for

change. Is it by creating a favourable environment for a flora

of small entrepreneurs? Possibly. Does that make the average

European more innovative? Possibly. But even if that is the

case, it is a regional cultural influence process with a time

horizon far into the future – and at that time, there is a real risk

that time has run out for Europe.

Here, we actually believe that the European business sector,

and the Scandinavian in particular, holds a large opportunity

to kick-start the journey towards the top of entrepreneurs.

The truth is that growth basically is a question of being able –

and daring – to seize an opportunity when it arises. It sounds

simple, but that is not the case, and, paradoxically, this is where

the potential lies. Namely in our way of organising ourselves

which is just as old and, for that matter, just as inexpedient as

the internal combustion engine and the incandescent bulb are

today. We live in a global knowledge society where windows

of opportunity are opened and closed in an increasing pace.

Thus, the companies that win are those which most effectively

and fast can allocate resources (knowledge) to where the

value creation is largest.

Large companies are the best entrepreneurs


What characterises these companies? First of all: Agreement

about direction and goals in the management team. Nothing

hampers growth more than individual power struggles.

Secondly: Common goals as a supplement to individual and

function-specific goals. Thirdly: Room for employees and

managers to seize the opportunities when they arise. And last

but not least: A culture where career, salary and prestige are

not a question of title and number of employees referring to

the individual manager, but, on the contrary, the value created

by the individual.

It is right here, in the companies that are already generating

the majority of Europe and Scandinavia’s value creation that

the real potential lies. And the elegant part is that we as a

by-product get exactly what we so eagerly want. Namely an

overall strengthening of our regional “entrepreneur muscle”,

expressed as the sum of all the private and public sector

employees who are now given the opportunity to work

systematically with innovation and, thus, improve their own

and their companies’ readiness for change.

To be the world’s number one region at growth

entrepreneurship is a beautiful thought. It is also much easier

to communicate than to execute. Ours is not, even though it

definitely has more potential…


When you change focus from rewarding individual achievements towards a stronger focus on common goals, you will lose some of the high performers that make your company successful today – do it anyway!

Growth


Impact (from Latin impactus, from impingere ‘thrust, strike or dash against’). The force or impetus transmitted by a collision; Measure of the tangible and intangible effects (consequences) or impression of one thing’s or entity’s action or influence upon another.

Impact


In a changeable world of management, full of acronyms and

buzzwords, it is encouraging that there are, after all, concepts

that have so much substance to them that they are as relevant

today as they were 10 or 20 years ago. Quite funnily, they are

often underrated – per haps because they are so obvious.

Take, for instance, performance management, which we in

Implement consider one of the most powerful management

tools, especially in relation to changes that call for

organisations and, thus, human behaviour to change.

No matter how long and deeply an overweight person

ponders the best strategy for achieving a healthier life, in all

probability, the end result will be a regimen of eating less and

exercising more. It is not exactly hard to arrive at that insight.

What IS hard is to actually live by that strategy! This is where

performance management becomes relevant. For, as with

any other behavioural change, it is incredibly difficult to work

dedicatedly towards achieving a healthier life without first

stepping up on the bathroom scales, get the shock over with

and then subsequently measuring whether the changes made

are having an impact.

If we look at major organisational chan ges or large-scale

system implementati ons, basic impact measurements are often

“forgotten”. Projects are typically initiated with the intention

of easing the administrative burden, improving quality or

increasing productivity, but we believe that the measurements

that support attainment of the desired impact, like the

bathroom scales in the example above, are in many cases not

established early enough or, worse, are not established at all.

Change, facts and impact


A key challenge, then, is that the rules have to be defined

first. If, say, we want to measure productivity, we first have

to define what that actually is in each specific case, which

is not necessarily an easy task. In addition, performance

management, including not least establishing the

measurement system itself, is not the organisa tion’s primary

focus in a change process. Often, this is regarded as a separate

project to be tagged ad hoc onto the change project. But

this is not feasible – impact measurement and change are

inextricably linked!

Without a system for impact measure ment in place, there is

a tendency to assess the project in isolation in terms of the

individual project deliverables we have planned. We forget

the overall purpose and find it difficult to answer the question

as to why we launched this particular initiative. That makes us

reluctant to make any adjustments to the project content. And

whereas the idea was to learn as the project proceeds, there is

a great risk of ending up in a situation where the operation was

successful, but the patient died.

Therefore, performance management holds water to this

day. For whether we call it manage ment by objectives, key

performance indicators or some other term, it is highly

recommendable to measure on indicators that give some

pointers to the results we have achieved – and then, of course,

to act on those results.

What is most thought-provoking is perhaps that it all starts

with that little word “why”. Why should I lose weight? Why do

we need a new ERP system? “Why” is an amazing word that

could easily replace a good many of the concepts that flourish

in the world of management, but it is probably too obvious...


Impact

When you establish KPIs in support of the change, you’ll find that this work is highly resource-intensive and only reflects part of the change – do it anyway!


To carry out; put into action; perform: To put into effect according to or by means of a definite plan or procedure.

Implementation


When a butterfly flaps its wings in London, the ultimate

consequence may be that it triggers a hurricane in the

Caribbean months later. This was one of the more spectacular

conclusions that followed in the wake of the discovery that

complex non -linear systems, such as the earth’s atmosphere,

are extremely sensitive to the slightest change in the system’s

initial conditions.

When changes are to be made in an or ganisation, we face

a similar complexity and are, thus, subject to some of the

same chaotic natural laws that govern the weather. The full

implications of this relatively new recognition are difficult to

grasp; for the managers responsible in the organisation, for

those who make a living advising on how to implement changes

and for those who deal with the topic in books and theory.

Basically, there are two schools of thought: Those who

maintain that changes are linear, proceed through a number

of well-defined phases and, thus, can be controlled, and those

who maintain that changes are non-linear and chaotic and,

accordingly, can be influenced, but not controlled. John P.

Kotter and Ralph Stacey are good examples of management

gurus representing each their school.

Kotter is popular because his approach is linear and creates

order. On the other hand, it is our experience that Kotter’s logic

underpins – somewhat excessively so – those huge change

projects that look so enticing on paper, but are so difficult to

execute in practice.

Here, it is important for us to stress that major change projects

must be approached with cautiousness. The risk of initiating

The art of implementing real change


something that will run out of control is imminent. A good

example is a large Scandinavian company which, following

thorough strategic considerations, planned and executed a

divisionalisation of the entire organisation. Within less than

a year, the company went from a healthy profit margin of

10% into the red. The fixed costs exploded, while the entire

organisation’s focus was directed inwards at its own issues

rather than at the customers. And it was not the plan that was

at fault, nor was it the strategic rationale for executing the

change. It was the change process itself.

This is where Stacey becomes relevant when claiming that we

cannot predict the outcome of organisational changes with

certainty, and that the uncertainty increases with the scope

and length of the project. By analogy, it is possible to predict

the weather tomorrow in Copenhagen, Stockholm or Oslo with

reasonable certainty, whereas we have no idea of what it will

be like in a month on a worldwide basis.

In organisational terms, this means that we can do ourselves

a great favour by splitting up large-scale projects into

sequences of smaller ones. More loops reduce uncertainty,

the organisation’s “change muscle” is exercised, and it allows

us to learn from our experience. With the addition, of course,

of focused and intelligent planning and execution of the

individual change projects.

Vast changes which in a single stroke impact the entire

organisation or much of it should, as far as possible, be

initiated only as a matter of life or death for the company.

They look good on paper, but the art is not in planning – it is in

implementing the change.


When you invite people to take part in the change and give them genuine influence early on in the process, you’ll lose control – do it anyway!

Implementation


Importance; weightiness; in a figurative sense: being critical, carry great weight.

Importance


The Roman senator and general Cato incorporated the words

“Furthermore, I think Carthage must be destroyed” into every

speech he held in the senate. Even though he kept repeating

this, he apparently did not say it enough. Just like the message

in this article cannot be said often enough, even though we

have heard it all before.

The father of one of our colleagues had been smoking ever

since he was a boy. He made it clear that his children were not

to smoke, so rationally he had acknowledged that smoking

is dangerous. Nevertheless, he smoked 30 cigarettes a day

up until the day he suffered from coronary thrombosis at the

age of 61. He survived and immediately stopped smoking. The

example emphasises a key point in all change – that a change

really needs to be important on a personal basis. Otherwise,

it will not be realised. The concept of importance is a central

point in the book A Sense of Urgency written by one of our

gurus, Harvard professor John P. Kotter. Strategic changes can,

quite simply, only be executed effectively if a sufficiently large

part of the organisation believe it to be sufficiently important.

It is just as trivial as it is right, and it must be the very definition

of a waste of time to devote attention to something that is not

important.

Unfortunately, we often waste our time. An essential reason

for this is the self-satisfaction which sneaks up on even the

most skilled companies. Here, the worst thing we can do is to

lean back and wait for the entire organisation, the family or

whatever system we want to change to realise the seriousness

of the situation. So, how do we make important things

important?

Make important things important


First of all, we need to acknowledge that just because

something is important to us, it is not necessarily important to

everybody else. Here, it can be tempting to position ourselves

as leaders who really make things happen. This is also OK

as long as it does not turn into blind action. For instance,

our colleague’s initiative of buying one year’s supply of

nicotine gum to his father was, of course, done with the best

intentions, but that alone would hardly be enough for him to

stop smoking. The point is that if something is to be made

important, the acknowledgement must start much earlier

than we would typically find natural, and we must appeal to

both the brain and the heart. We must also remember that

we, in our role as managers, often have spent several months

preparing for a strategic change. That which is important HAS

become important to us, but when we then demand that the

remainder of the organisation joins the ranks instantaneously,

it is not only unrealistic – it is also unfair.

Thus, we have been pleased when several of Scandinavia’s

well-known top managers have addressed the difficult market

conditions and made an honest announcement at an early

stage. Not about a diffuse crisis, but specifically about the

need for reductions in the capacity. This affects both the brain

and the heart and makes the important things important.

Carthage was ultimately destroyed. But either Cato should

have held more speeches or addressed the hearts of the

other senators more strongly, for it was not until Hannibal had

slaughtered 70,000 Roman soldiers at Cannae that what was

important became important to others than Cato.


When you communicate, you’ll reach a point where you get tired of listening to yourself – do it anyway!

Importance


Innovation (from Latin innovatio, from in-, derivative of novus ‘new’), development of a new idea and its realisation in practice. The central point about an innovation is that, as a new idea, it is brought into actual use.

Innovation


During our work for a global growth company, we have

recently carried out a project with focus on developing

products faster and more efficiently. The project was, in our

opinion, a success. The client, who is recognised as one of

the world’s leading experts within his area of expertise, was,

basically, satisfied. However because he acts the way he does

when clients are at their best, he asks anyway: Seeing that we

are capable of reducing the lead time of a project from 600 to

300 days, why not reduce it to 100 days?

It is, of course, quite the partykiller in a situation where we

had expected to get a pat on the shoulder for our efforts. But

he is right. Why do we consider good results as final when

we are fully aware that in 12 months from now, we will be able

to create the same percentage improvement one more time

and once again 12 months later? Why do we not change our

mindset radically, raise the bar and reap the full benefits now?

And once again – not in 12 months, but in six months?

Recently, we had the pleasure of discussing strategy with

Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Management.

According to Martin, today, most strategic work suffers from a

gap between analytical and intuitive thinking. This is primarily

caused by the fact that strategy has become an analytical

discipline where predictability is rewarded more than results.

Rather promise little and surprise positively than reaching for

the stars and risking not quite reaching them – analogously to

the above example.

However, large innovations solely based on analyses of the

past are rare. For even though the analysis is imperative in

order to being able to understand and generalise and, thus,

Why not?


scale, the tempo and complexity in our surrounding world have

reached a level where we need to change the balance between

value creation and our need for predictability. Those of us who

think analytically must learn to speak an intuitive language,

and those who think intuitively must learn to communicate in

an analytical mindset. Both sets of competences are absolutely

necessary. Even though innovation and intuitive thinking

are closely linked, it is only when rationality and analysis are

involved in the process that the large-scale commercial and

business breakthroughs take place.

Companies such as Apple, Google and Just Eat are good

examples. Their development has been unpredictable, but their

value creation has been immense because they have been able

to combine intuitive and analytical thinking. Whether we, as

Roger Martin, call it Design Thinking is of minor importance.

We MUST be able to combine that which is rational and

analytical with that which is intuitive and irrational. In this cross

field, limitations turn into opportunities. This is also where the

most successful companies operate and the best employees

thrive, develop and generate most value.

Thus, the question presented in the beginning of this article

is just a logical consequence of the reality we live in and a

question that we – who are well on in years – must get used to

being asked: Why not?


Innovation

When you constantly question the way things are done, you’ll create uncertainty and debate – do it anyway!


The capacity or ability to lead, the position or office of a leader. Can also mean guidance; direction.

Leadership


A couple of years ago, Harvard Business Review published a

thought-provoking article by Gary Hamel, former professor

at Harvard, who coined the concept of core competences. In

the article, which in our opinion is mandatory reading for all

strategists, he lists 25 “Moon Shots”. They represent his and a

number of other thinkers’ thoughts on what it takes to create

the same quantum leap within management in the 21st century

as the Apollo programme did within technology in the 20th

century.

Even though all 25 Moon Shots are relevant, we have chosen

to concentrate on just one of them based on a personal

experience which one of our employees had recently together

with his three boys aged 12-15. The boys had been given the

task to plan three days where the only rules were a maximum

amount of money to be spent and that it was to take place

in the open. A typical project task which most of us will

encounter hundreds of times during our lives – both personally

and professionally. To cut a long story short, it was very

difficult for the boys to agree on anything, and when the oldest

finally succeeded in dictating the terms, they were quarrelling,

running late and not able to meet the agreed budget. Also

a typical situation in many projects. The boys’ father came

to their aid and made the arrangements, and, luckily, the

weekend turned out to be a great experience. They drove off

into the woods, camped out, caught fish and went canoeing.

When first hearing the story, we did not think more of it

since we have experienced many similar situations – not just

personally, but also professionally in our own company and

as consultants in other organisations. Then, we read Hamel’s

article, specifically Moon Shot no. 7, “Redefine the work of

The leaders of the 21st century are architects


leadership”, where he states: “The notion of the leader as a

heroic decision-maker is untenable. Leaders must be recast

as social-systems architects who enable innovation and

collaboration”. The leader’s role is, within the framework of

these systems, to define a set of overall ground rules and

frames supporting innovation, collaboration and development

among the employees. Thus, “the system” and not the leader

makes the decisions.

And even though this may not be just as ground-breaking

to a Scandinavian as to an American, it is a good reminder

– but it is easier said than done. In our experience, only few

organisations are able to keep their cool and let the ship take

in water, waiting for decision-making power and initiative to be

built up. Instead, we put pressure on the middle manager who

is superior to the employees who are to improve their ability

and will to make independent decisions with the result that the

middle manager merely “takes over”. And then we are back to

where we started.

Nevertheless, there is no getting round it. We must face

that the situations – either in the role of a leader or a parent

– in which we make all decisions ourselves are merely an

expression of poor management and poor upbringing,

respectively.


When you insist on delegating decisions and rely on “the system” to make them, you’ll inevitably disagree with some of them – do it anyway!

Leadership

17 paradoxes on change

Business

Transcript of 17 paradoxes on change