|
|
Change, Watzlawick et al, W. W. Norton and Company, 1974
Although written back in 1974, this fascinating little book remains, to my mind, one of the best and most thought provoking ever written on the challenging and perplexing subject of change. It also has the advantage of being short and easy to read, especially as the first two chapters provide academic and theoretical background and can be safely skipped by any but the most scrupulous of readers.
Starting the first chapter with the French proverb “Plus ca change plus c’est la meme chose”, the book is based around the paradox of persistence and change. That is, as the proverb implies, the more things change, the more they continue to be exactly as they were before. Most of us have experienced transformation initiatives and re-engineering exercises designed to bring about profound organisational change, only to find that the old patterns and problems remain stubbornly intact. According to the authors, in complex human systems, solutions based on the linear logic of cause and effect rarely produce the desired results. What they do note with interest, however, is that it is often the illogical approaches that deliver, the puzzling and uncommonsensical solutions that transform the situation.
The structure and core ideas of the book are simple, practical and clear. First, working from Bertrand Russell’s theory of Logical Types the writers introduce the principles of first and second order change as a way of both understanding and escaping the paradox of persistence and change. Secondly, they entertainingly describe four ways in which people and organisations typically try to change things without getting the results they hoped for. Thirdly, they describe and commend the concept and skill of problem reframing. Finally, a simple and practical four step model of change is proposed and explained.
The application of first or second order change is based around first understanding whether we are dealing with difficulties or problems. They describe a difficulty as the class of challenge that can be resolved through common sense action and the application of linear logic. In complex human systems such as modern corporations, however, we frequently have to deal not with difficulties but with problems. That is with impasses, deadlock and ambiguity. For difficulties, a known problem with a know solution, change can be applied within the existing pattern and rules. To resolve problems, however, second order change is needed. That is, we need to change the rules and introduce a change from outside the existing pattern. If not, we get stuck in what the authors describe as “A game without end”.
A game without end is a situation in which the solution reveals itself to be the keystone of the problem. This often occurs when the logic that if something is bad, the opposite must be good is applied. They point out that there is a strange interdependence of opposites in most systems and relationships and that they tend to sustain rather than break the status quo. A game without end persists because we continue to work within existing patterns and rules. In complex systems, however, rules are only real to the extent that we have created them. We can equally change them.
One way out of such a stuck pattern is to avoid the question why and to ask rather: “What is being done here and now to perpetuate the problem and what can be done here and now to effect change.”
Four examples of games without end are presented, each of which seems horribly familiar. The first they label as “more of the same”. This is based on the principle that if we are not achieving the desire change it simply means that we need to push and try harder. We need to keep doing more of the same. If we are stuck in a deep dark hole of out own making, this form of logic suggests that the best solution is to keep digging, but harder. Inevitably, the solution then becomes the problem.
The second game is called “terrible simplifications”. Life and business is too complex and messy, so let’s go into denial. Because matters are urgent, we need urgent solutions; we do not have time to go into the complexities of the matter. Often there is a conspiracy to leave core problems unspoken, to ignore the elephant in the room because it is too messy to deal with. Corporate myths often get sustained in this way through a sweeping denial of deep problems.
The third game, the “utopia syndrome”, is one that very many organisational change initiatives are guilty of. The idea of a perfect solution, of a holy grail, gets in the way of the “good enough” solutions that work. There are always snake oil sellers and gurus willing to take our money. To quote Karl Popper: “It is much easier to propose ideal and abstract goals and find enthusiastic followers than to solve concrete problems.” Or, as the authors put it, “While we pursue the unattainable, we make impossible the realisable.”
The final game is the game of “paradox”. They derive this from Gregory Bateson’s Double Bind theory. This is the inadvertent creation of a paradox such as “be spontaneous”. The underlying but unspoken logic of, for example, empowerment initiatives is that “we want you to want to do what it is that we want you to do”, a logic that gave George Orwell grave cause for concern. The principle of spontaneous compliance in the search for a better future ends in organisational game playing and dangerously suppresses diversity.
The necessary alternative to these linear approaches is mental flexibility and the capacity to be able to constantly reframe problems. They point out that, in complex social systems, reality is just what a sufficiently large number of people have agreed to call real. They commend the mental fluidity required to be able to frame problems and situations in different ways and the capacity to hold at least two contradictory ideas in mind at the same time. Successful organisations are generally those that give themselves the most choices. In other words, apply second order change; change the rules from outside the existing pattern.
Finally, they propose a refreshingly simple and practical four step model for change. These steps are:
o Start with a clear and specific understanding of the current situation, without searching unnecessarily for past causes. Ask a lot of questions starting with “what” and none starting with “why”.
o Fully investigate the solutions attempted so far. They are likely to be a large part of what is maintaining the problem.
o Do nothing until a clear definition of the concrete change to be achieved is agreed. Ask “what specifically?”
o Formulate and implement a plan to produce change.
Such simple, clear and pragmatic advice. How often, however, do organisational change initiatives impeccably follow such a process.
In the last, short chapter there is a final nugget of practical advice: enduring
Need we say more.
| Related stories: |
 | Living Leadership: A practical guide for ordinary heroes, by G Binney, G Wilke and C Williams, FT Prentice Hall, 2005 | | Simply Strategy: The shortest route to the best strategy, by R Koch and P Nieuwenhuizen, Prentice Hall, 2006 | | The Leadership Pipeline, By R. Charan, S. Drotter and J. Noel, Josey-Bass, 2001 | | Relationship Marketing, by Regis McKenna, Century Hutchinson, 1992 |
|
|
