Thought Leadership
Segmenting Change to Overcome Resistance and Drive Efforts Forward
Introduction
Big change in any organization is hard. The reasons for this are covered by decades of research and documented in hundreds of books and studies. Much of this research is summarized by a common saying that people simply prefer the 'certainty of misery' to the 'misery of uncertainty', and this often holds true in public and private sector organizations alike. However, in organizations or situations lacking decisive leadership, a command and control structure, or the ability to fully leverage traditional techniques that make change stick, organizations can face significantly unique and greater challenges ‘changing things’.
Technique #1: Segmenting Efforts
One of the keys to successfully executing larger-scale changes in organizations is breaking down the effort into much smaller changes or efforts, the combination of which ultimately implements a larger scale change. Smaller changes help reduce complexity for the implementer as well as the organization, they're easier for people to adjust to, and their value is more easily justified.
Segmenting change is different from segmenting activity or breaking a plan into sub-tasks. Segmenting change focuses on identifying the right level of achievable progress towards a goal and moving forward with that change. Efforts may possess a combination of larger and smaller segments, but each is based on identifying what is necessary and only necessary to feasibly move forward. For example, if an organization wanted to improve the efficiency of its fleet operations, the initial thought might be to simply identify ways to reduce costs by looking at the organization’s fleet requirements, analyzing some operational scenarios or performing a present value analysis on investments and then executing. However, the reality might be that the fleet itself is managed by seven regional centers all doing their own thing. Therefore Improvement will likely require standardization or even centralized management.
Given this, the most feasible approach is to heavily segment the effort. Those segments themselves may need to be segmented again and again perhaps starting simply with an initial goal of getting the regional fleet managers together, perhaps for the first time.
In organizations highly resistant to change or ones in which significant cultural or political resistance exists, it may be necessary to continue to segment efforts into what might almost be described as micro-changes. The result is, as one might imagine, micro-progress at first, but as progress is made over time through a series of small changes, the effort starts to reach a point of critical mass, a point at which the change is unstoppable based on momentum.
Technique #2: Focusing on Direction Over Destination
When an initiative is broken into segments, the direction of those segments becomes more critical, often more important than the destination itself. A key benefit of segmentation is that even though a broad, large-scale objective may never be fully achieved, the successful execution of one or more smaller efforts typically results in real incremental value for the organization. From this perspective, success is measured not by the implementation of a 'thing' but by progress achieved towards a set of objectives.
Take for example the concept of consolidation. Whether the focus is redundant organizations, roles, or systems, if the goal is to consolidate it down to one, every stakeholder must buy in completely to achieve that goal. However, if the effort is segmented into smaller efforts where receptive groups consolidate first, followed by the consolidation of a few more groups that were straddling the fence, even if the remaining groups refuse to budge redundancy is significantly reduced. Progress is made regardless of whether the ultimate goal is ever achieved. This shift in approach, though frequently subtle, can suddenly generate progress where previously none seemed possible.
Embracing this concept often solves another point of paralysis for efforts, taking the first step. Many efforts are stalled at the point of transition from vision or plan to action because that initial step represents a complete and total buy-in to the whole concept or destination. By removing that burden from the first point of action, and instead framing that the first step may also be the last if it makes sense, the ability to move forward is often enabled. When one organization was considering whether to support an initiative to build a new type of plant, the effort went through years of internal debate. Once a decision was made to just kick-off formal planning because that alone would offer enormous value even if they didn’t move forward after that, progress on design, information sharing, and innovation was enabled.
Technique #3: Minimizing the Scope and Scale of Decisions
Decisions, to a large extent, create natural risk for the individuals making them. A common strategy for many leaders is to minimize this risk and the need to personally extend themselves through explicit decision-making. Instead, these leaders seek to 'engineer' outcomes through a variety of mechanisms. In some cases, the engineered outcome is equivalent to an explicit decision by the leader. But in many cases, the ability to secure explicit decisions from formal leadership is an eventual requirement for true progress.
The reality in many organizations is that decisions can reach a certain level of importance or impact that they simply won't be made by their leadership for professional, political, and personal reasons. Every decision, in the private and public sector, professionally and personally, requires the acceptance of a certain level of risk and often the cashing in of some level of goodwill. The larger the decision, the more risk and the more expense of goodwill and political capital.
The ability to successfully secure formal decisions from leaders is frequently a result of minimizing the scope, scale, and ultimately the risk of those decisions. Decision scope and scale is most easily reduced by creating more frequent decision points focused on smaller scale issues or options consistent with the overall objective. Smaller scale decision points are also a natural result and benefit of efforts that are successfully segmented. An organizational leader for example may refuse to sign-off on a complete re-organization but over time sign-off on the same re-organization in a series of multiple smaller segments.
The number of options presented also represents an important factor in securing formal decisions. More options often result in decision 'paralysis' whereby leadership or other governance mechanisms such as committees are simply overwhelmed by the information they need to process and comprehend in order to make a sound choice. In most cases, the ideal approach is to fully vet options before presentation to leadership for decision making. Ideally the number of options for leadership to consider is limited to two or three. By vetting options thoroughly and reducing their number, the risk of decision 'paralysis' is reduced.
Technique #4: Measuring Progress Over Longer Periods of Time
Given the realities of typical environments and cultures, most larger-scale efforts will simply take longer to complete than initially envisioned. Even straightforward activities, such as the release and distribution of a short report can take weeks to complete as the report makes its way through various review cycles. When highly segmented efforts meet these environmental factors, progress may be almost unnoticeable except over longer periods of time. Like watching trees grow, looking daily, weekly or even monthly may create the impression that nothing is happening. But from season to season, the progress is unmistakable.
In environments like this with efforts structured in smaller segments, success must be measured over longer periods of time. The adoption of AI illustrates this concept. Many organizations today are grappling with how to leverage generative AI for strategic value but face internal pressure from leaders who are not ready to adopt the technology. However, newer resources entering the workforce, bringing with them a different mindset and demand for the technology, will also act as a catalyst to accelerate organizational adoption. Although this particular type of transition occurs as a result of more natural forces, the same progress curve exists for concerted efforts to change.
Setting timing expectations accordingly is crucial for maintaining momentum and continued support. Many efforts are launched by the promise of the benefits they will bring. But over promising both the scale and speed with which benefits will come typically leads to discontent and disillusionment, ultimately scuttling otherwise valuable efforts. Balancing value with realistic expectations of extended delivery timing is a key element for successfully moving efforts forward in any organization.
Case Study Example
Bruce was recently promoted to Manager within an IT services division of a mid-sized organization. His promotion was due in large part to his impressive management over the delivery of IT services to the organization’s Research and Development (R&D) group which was a frequent complainer of IT service quality. Bruce knew that a large part of his success stemmed from his ability to establish service level agreements (SLAs) whereby service provider performance was tied specifically to explicit service levels being met for the R&D’s users. The change had not been easy, but the contract was not large and the contractor was amenable to defining specific performance parameters.
Bruce felt that in order to be successful in his new role, he would have to get the agency’s largest IT services providers, as well his colleagues and management, to agree to a new performance management model supported by formal SLAs. The concept, while understood by leadership, was a departure from their current qualitative approach. In addition, the organization's IT services were provided by multiple vendors with different contracts for each of its many locations. Bruce felt it would be an uphill climb getting everyone to agree to new contract terms given the various points in the contract lifecycle each contract was currently in, not to mention getting the vendors to agree to what amounted to a more formal evaluation of their performance when they enjoyed the benefits of the current less formal structure.
Segment Efforts
In order to get the effort off the ground, Bruce laid out an initial strategy whereby he would break the effort into five primary phases. First, Bruce would identify the primary metrics valuable for establishing SLAs. Second, Bruce would develop the mechanisms for collecting the metrics, including capturing data from multiple service management applications in use and implementing a simple service quality survey to be completed by the user at the end of any service request. Third, Bruce would work to embed the concept of SLAs into upcoming service contract RFPs. Fourth, Bruce would attempt to negotiate with longer term contract holders the implementation of SLAs into the contract through new and revised task orders under existing vehicles. Lastly, Bruce would look to launch a new effort to consolidate the multiple service management platforms as a follow-on project.
Focus on Direction, not Destination
Bruce recognized that he might not be able to fully implement formal SLAs in every contract but felt that even getting the organization to think about service levels would drive an increased focus on service quality. Moving beyond that to the collection of data would also provide at a minimum a great snapshot for identifying immediate issues. If Bruce's effort proved more successful, he felt he would be able to get formal SLAs into some if not most of the new and existing contracts.
Minimize the Scope and Scale of Decisions
Bruce was certain that if he tried to consolidate systems and implement an organization-wide standard SLA he would have significant difficulty getting leadership to buy off wholesale on the concept. For one thing, the concept not only spanned multiple sub-organizations in the IT organization but crossed into other functional areas including the procurement department. He knew from his experience the groups often point fingers when it came to any level of contractual friction. By breaking the effort up, Bruce needed only a handful of individuals to informally discuss what metrics held value, one manager's approval to collect data, and after that, negotiate with individual contract specialists and IT sponsors to start to use them in new or revised contracts.
Measure Progress over Longer Periods of Time
Bruce knew that given the realities of provider contracts, the real payoff might take years. Acknowledging this, Bruce explained to his leadership that because the current approach and situation had evolved to its current state over close to two decades, there was simply no quick fix; the solution would take years to fully untangle. Although Bruce expected management to push back, they instead praised him for being honest and being the first to establish not only a vision but a realistic plan.
Conclusion - Using the Described Techniques
Bruce found that while identifying the metrics was not hard, getting the real data was. Most of the service management systems were run by the contractors themselves and they immediately recognized that making the data readily available was not in their best interests. Bruce escalated his requests and in the end, the contractor resistance to increased visibility would later provide Bruce with additional ammunition for why the service levels were important for improved vendor management. Through the effort, Bruce was eventually able to get SLAs embedded in some tasks within the organization's two largest contracts. The standardization of the SLAs also enabled the organization to consolidate several other service contracts under one umbrella contract which resulted in other benefits to the organization. The consolidation of service management systems, while valuable, was never implemented because the number of other systems integrated into each system created too much cost and complexity for the effort to be successful. Instead Bruce turned towards other standardization efforts that offered more immediate value to the organization.
Conclusion - Not Using the Described Techniques
Bruce knew the SLAs represented the lynchpin of improved service. He developed a plan to develop organization wide SLAs, implement a single service management system, and embed the SLAs into every contract. Even after six months of lobbying, Bruce could not get anyone in the organization to sponsor the effort. While the value was clearly greater than the investment, the risk and costs seemed to create an impossible hurdle for getting anyone in leadership to sign up for it. After a year, Bruce finally abandoned the effort leaving many in the organization to conclude that his success for the R&D group had more to do with being in the right place at the right time than being effective.
Summary
Successfully accomplishing change in organizations frequently requires slicing efforts into as small a chunk of activity as necessary to eliminate resistance. Sometimes changing an organization or program comes down to an ability to make one very small change a day, week, or month - a single worthless field on a form deleted, a single step added to a process, or getting just one person on-board. This ‘boil the frog’ approach means efforts may take longer, but in some cases the only realistic path forward is a highly incremental one.