Changing The Way We Think About Change - How Does Viral Change (TM) Work?

Under certain conditions, a small set of behaviors has the power to create meaningful and sustained change in the organization. This statement - crucial for understanding the type of change management that I scored Viral Change - is based on three premises: 1. Life within the organization is not linear. What do I mean by that? Within the organization, we see every day things that show a disproportion between what we consider to be cause and effect. Take trust, for example. It usually takes a lot to build. It looks like a slow growth curve. Suddenly, something happens (an event, reward, recognition of the error and be honest at the top ...) and trust levels rocket. It may stay like this for a long time. Then, something else happens - perhaps only a relatively small breach, in the broader context - and confidence quickly eroded, sliding down the curve, and often leaving behind a strong sense of injustice and feelings of injustice. The reality is that, whether we like it or not, small interventions ( "disturbance"), may have a major impact or a huge impact. This non-linear, in which we work every day, is vital to understand the change in organizations. However, most of the "change management" executives are familiar to us - and most of the planning process and implementation elsewhere - assuming the opposite, ie linearity: big problems in great need of solutions, major changes require major interventions, goals in dire need of a large number D'strategic objectives and a large number of shares and implementations.2. Let us go further in change. Many executives would agree that there is no real change unless we see the change in attitudes. We can map new processes and systems, the design of new structures, creating massive communication plans, to train people and to call for change. But if people continue to work as before, or if their behaviors have not changed much, then all we have is the illusion of change. The problem is that the main event - tacit or explicit - behind processes and change "is a bad thing: it is, attitudes will follow as a consequence of changes in the process. We had one, we changed to B because it is better, people will behave accordingly. As many people know, this is not the case ... At least, not all the time! This assumption is erroneous. Behaviors are lost in the equation. New business processes and systems do not create behaviors in a sustainable manner. Even a first peak positive reaction is often followed by fading interest and low adoption. Simply reactive behaviour change as a result of the implementation of a new process or a system is often unsustainable. Instead, we need these behaviors within the organization first to support a new process! Let's look at an example. Imagine that you are in the process of introducing software collaboration ", a system that allows people to share information, to establish common frameworks, exchange ideas and plans to continually update the Data customers,… The new system will not create a partnership in itself. It will not convert people individualistic gregarious employees. It will not make people entering data in the CRM (customer relationship management) system, simply because they can. Collaborative behaviour must be pre-existing fabric of the conduct of the organization. Then, the "collaborative software" facilitate collaboration in a sustainable manner. The software needs of the process in the first place, the process must first behaviour ... Yes, the conduct must come first.3. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher ( "there is no society"), I would say that there is no such thing as culture, there are only behaviors. Behaviors create culture, and not vice versa. Culture is not a closed things such as beliefs, attitudes, values, behaviors and logos. Intellectually, it can be challenging to use all those terms - they are good conversations - but pragmatic, other than the logo visible (as a shortcut to a "culture"), the only other things are observable behaviors. A culture of responsibility, for example, there is no in the same way as a human resources department or a performance management system. To see people doing A, B, C (taking responsibility for the actions, keep their promises, in reaction to problems quickly and to be rewarded for the results clear) - and behave in a specific way - we can d 'label that the culture in this way. The same applies to another culture. "The culture of innovation" is a good, attractive and engaging, but not terribly effective operational concept beyond the language itself. What we see is people doing innovative things, to improve the way they solve problems, develop new ideas, to systematically ask "what we can do differently", etc. Precisely Due to the existence of collective behaviour in a particular organization Whether we afford to label it "culture of innovation", not because there is a "container innovation," where residents these things. You can argue that if these behaviors exist, it's probably because the place must have processes, systems, rules, etc. which allow or facilitate people to behave in this way. This is true, but these processes, systems and rules have been created by individuals, but are the result of their behaviour. Some people create rules for other people to be able to do something innovative; others to follow. In both cases, we are talking behaviours.These three premises: (1) non-linearity of the organization, (2) the need to focus on behaviour to create and declare "real change" and (3) understanding of the culture as a concept that makes sense only through visible behaviors, allow us to establish the basis for an alternative, modern approach to the management of change. This is Viral Evolution ™, which I have presented before with the statement that "under certain conditions, a small set of behaviors has the power to create a big change." The next question should be "how". To answer this question, we must begin by questioning how we could define this small series of behaviors. Let me say in advance that any behaviour needs reinforcement (reward, recognition) in order to become stable. In other words, if a behavior is there because it is being reinforced (if we know what is or strengthen or not). So, if we need to reinforce behaviors that belong to this small group, we need to define them at a level that can easily be strengthened. How good is it? It is quite detailed and concrete with unequivocal meaning for everyone involved. Let's look at an example. The collaboration is certainly a behavior, but that left at the conceptual level, two people can easily have different interpretations of what that means. And worse still, they may not cross-check their understanding of the meaning and tacitly assume that they are both talking about the same thing. This high level concept - that I called macromolecules, to use a biological analogy - is not very useful in terms of building. These two people may be different, even opposite things rewarding in the context of the same collaboration banner.If we try to be more precise, people can resume some other translations. For example, X, collaboration is the sharing of information between the teams and Yc'est spontaneous sharing of resources when necessary. This level is currently considering the most sensitive to armature, because I have to see if the information and / or resources are shared and people do. I called this "molecular level." The discussion of the same people - perhaps by now have gained a better understanding of the challenge - may want to go even further and say, for example, that the real behaviors they would like to see people from sending d a team of a weekly e-mail to all members of Team B with updated information on customers, and that the leaders of A and B meet every Monday to "provide resources" for the . I ask this level of behaviour "atomic". This atomic level, which is considered out of context may seem trivial, especially for anyone who is not part of the exercise. But in the broader context - is having behaviour atomic molecular those who create and molecular behaviors that create high-level concepts macromolecular - atomic these behaviours are far from trivial. The test of the validity of atomic behavior is simple. It only requires management judgement and imagination. The question is: "Imagine if everybody is (atomic behavior here), it has become the norm, a routine, what sort of organization would we build?" This "Imagine if 'test is the basis of how we need to map this small set of behaviors. Depending on the circumstances of the organization or made the objectives of "change management" program, you - perhaps with some advice from people who have a strong background behavioural sciences - will find a list of behaviors, each of them from your "Imagine if 'test.The next step is a choice. My words are used with care. I do not prioritize, although it is certainly a choice. The difference, however, is relevant. In our process of determining the traditional priorities, we may have to define what is feasible or not, or what can be done with the resources available. Reduce the choice is often accompanied by an abandonment of all good ideas that are "beyond our control" and would be too costly. Unfortunately, this approach means that, in many cases, those who might make the greatest impact vigilance. These considerations can be important, but in my experience, people reject the ideas, on this basis, too often and too quickly. With attitudes focused - as opposed to the process-oriented - there is a lot we can do, even without direct control of some resources.In Viral Change mode ™, we invite management to exercise judgement and choice mainly driven behaviors by the "Imagine if 'Test. In my experience in consultation with the organisations, a small group of four to six behaviors defined at the level atomic and transmit the "Imagine if a test is what we need to create in the big change.Still" how ", we An additional principle: That the organization is a network of connections (+ flow of information influence). This is hardly a statement innovative. However, most of the management practices and change management process "praise him, while energy and attention focusing on a concept of the organization that looks like a plumbing system" "with the leadership in broadband and one of the goals, guidelines, rules and data percolation through the pipes at all levels of management. This rather mechanical-hydraulic - entry in the upper part, the production at the bottom - concept of the organization understands the existence of groups of people with common goals, called teams. In fact, the concept of default is an organization to be a teamocracy. It has taught us that the teams are in the natural form, collaboration, and management practices have internalized this fully to the extent that we are happy and more or less unconsciously synonymous with collaboration and team.However, the modern view of the organization is one of the most frequently Loose network of connections between individuals. Yes, some of these connections were designed and manufactured in order to achieve performance (teams, committees, working groups), but they can account for only a quarter of the total. It's like visiting a new town and jumping on a circuit. You see the monuments, buildings institutions, the main streets and parks and a few curiosities. This will not give you a deep understanding of urban life. In fact, many citizens can spend their entire productive lives town, without going into any of these buildings, streets or parks. The bus tour of the organization, we watch teams and structures, but there is much more going on. Conversations informal, spontaneous collaboration, drawing on the intellectual capital beyond the borders of "my team", to ask questions, to begin a conversation on an issue of concern, venting emotions (including whinging, frustration of disbelief or admiration), etc. occur in the networks of individuals, real highways of the organization. Some of these connections are "strong ties" (close, frequent), and others are "weak links" (distant, loose, casual), as defined by sociologists. Most - but not all - of the strong type groupings are represented by the teams. They are designed and visible areas of collaboration. But perhaps up to three-quarters of organizational life is only understood in the context of these highways, and possibly an easing of invisible connections where conversations happen. " Today we know a lot about how the networks work, thanks to a convergence of captivating social sciences and computer sciences. There are remarkable similarities between these networks, whether those providing connections on the World Wide Web, computer networks, or social networks such as those that truly represent organizational life. I think that the three characteristics of these networks have fascinating implications for the management of the organization and management of change.First of all, the network is not very democratic and egalitarian. Some nodes (individuals) have loads of connections and most other nodes (people) have fewer connections. It is far from the usual Bell curve or normal distribution that constantly comes to mind when we ask a question about the performance of people within the organization. In fact, it is best represented by a power law distribution or logarithmic. Incidentally, this feature - well demonstrated both in the e-world and the social world - should not be a surprise to those who work in organizations. The fact that a relatively small number of individuals, not necessarily high in the hierarchy, seem to be very well served as a "street observation." The second characteristic is even less egalitarian. These nodes (individuals) with a large number of connections tend to buy even more, and those who have fewer connections tend to stay like that, or even less (unless a kind of "mutation Personal 'arrives). Again, not surprisingly, an alternative formulation for "the rich are getting richer (in the connections of power, influence) and the poor poorer." I called this the effect of Matthew networks. The third is that, at some point in the lives of these knots, some of them will stop behaving like nodes and adopt collective behaviour unit. A tipping point occurs, and a new entity or phenomenon appears. This is a complicated way to explain how water molecules in ice tower at zero degrees - phase transition in physics. Extrapolating with some freedom in society, individuals of a team can no longer be distinguished from individuals with the thought, just to see one, single, unified, strong and coherent reality. We call it "groupthink". If we put all these three characteristics - right engine, Matthew effect and critical points - and then apply them to organizational life, a fantastic and instructive image appears. Indeed, a small group of individuals hold the power to influence the rest of the organization, but they can hardly be represented by the hierarchy shown on the organizational chart. This group or sector of the network will grow in their influence over time (although their composition may change). If these very trendy, very influential people have taken on board the spread of this small set of behaviors which adopted the "Imagine if the test was approved, practiced them, encouraged others to do the same and reinforces these behaviors when they saw them (peer to peer), then, at a certain stage of this progression of the influence, a "social-phase transition" (tipping point) will be held and behaviours become established as a new routine . We may not see the transition in the same way as we do not see the water molecules, the ice becomes'! People who were influenced, can now influence others - of a power commensurate with their degree of connectivity - and again at a given time, certain groups of people would have sufficient critical mass to "type" and establish a new standard of conduct or routine. Changes in these conditions takes the form of an epidemic within new behaviors, a social infection, not a downward cascade "training" or communications program with a series of presentations and workshops.So, who are these "powerful"? How can we find them and ask them for help? There are many ways - with varying degrees of sophistication - at our disposal to identify these individuals. The academic, social sciences is to use the tools to perform what is called a "social network analysis or mapping these connections, what can be done through questionnaires or" other means. My 'practitioner's way "is to simply ask people! In my consulting experience, if you ask the leadership of a profile of people - very trendy, great influence, people listen to them, what they do and issues is sometimes imitated, perhaps in lower ranks , etc. - they are able to note the names almost on the spot. It is less sophisticated, more pragmatic to "find" these people, who will be asked to assist in the dissemination of news behaviours.The that the mechanisms of propagation were well known in the social sciences: imitation, reproduction society, the role of modeling, etc. In practical terms, this means Joe having a conversation with Lisa in terms like this: "You know, I think it is high time to take this seriously and keep our promises. I will certainly begin. At the next meeting, I propose that I shall we check with each other for any broken promises. What do you think? I am all for it. "It is perhaps a little simplistic example, but in Viral Change mode ™ Everything starts with the initial approval of the modeling and the role of this small group of individuals who are very connected, which I tend to the Change Champions' label 'or' Change Agents'. While the individual micro-social And, the main vector for the spread is imitation, copying or social conformity with "a new rule" created by someone (or a group) one of the trusts, at macro-social (always within the organization) is the primary vehicle history. What has worked or not, how a team has overcome bureaucratic obstacles, how another group circumvented the "lack of data" to act, what John has done in Scotland with a skeptical customer, how meetings have completely changed in that unit by an adaptation of On the agenda of new behaviours required, the way people in this group in Cornwall routinely pick up the phone and ask his peers in East Anglia for entry or ideas, ... These are the kinds of things that people remember and tend to imitate or "bookmark". It may seem that the practice of "good practices", but it is not. "Best Practices" project is often targeted and fairly static, only reviewed annually or on time. Stories flow every day and can be spread at any time to produce a constant flow of "things that are taking place and that were not there before." Now we can see how Viral Evolution ™ is very different from Standard "me-too change management program." In the standard manner, a large number of actions, and communicated to all more or less at the same time, at all levels of management, is expected to reach all corners of the organization and produce change. In Viral Change mode ™, a small set of behaviors, spread via internal networks of influence, by a small group of people, create an internal infection and tipping points behavior leading to lasting change, further propagated by new features stories.Three Viral Change ™ must also be taken into account: (a) The measure of success is not done by the usual series of milestones and deadlines. In fact, a measurement system must be created from scratch and tailored to the organization, including elements of the "Imagine if 'test that the organization wants to" see. " With the traditional "me-too" of the program, while being chased by crocodiles, and a timetable, "predicted". With the approach viral Change ™ must be constructed for the purposes of measurement once the process has begun and the champions themselves can play a big role in this mapping. The system parameters may contain quantitative data, but it is likely to be built primarily on qualitative criteria, based on the flow of stories. This is not the usual way that process strongly focused on organizations' measure of things "and that it may be an effort to understand and adjust management attitudes. As Einstein once said: "Not everything that can be counted, and everything that counts can be counted. Virus (b) Evolution ™ challenges leadership models in the organization, to the extent that what is needed here is backstage in support of champions in their community propagation of the infection. In fact, a model of "distributed leadership" is clear, and, suddenly, the organization becomes "leading rich" with the champion of the community. Top-down leadership is to facilitate, support and enable the work hidden champions. There is no command and control involved in the community. In fact, if you push me in terms of defining a hierarchy, the champions report directly to the community - and have a mandate - senior management team, regardless of where the individual is the champion in a line management structure of the plumbing system. (C) The word "hidden" in the paragraph above is not trivial. Change ™ viral occurs rather an informal and invisible, like an infection. There are no workshops where supervisors or short champions a multitude of PowerPoints cascading downwards. Champions may want to meet people, but it will be on their own and it will be informal. (Again, the leadership must facilitate this by removing obstacles or resources allowing some) There are no grand declarations of a "new agenda" or anything that resembles / could resemble " another corporate initiative. " The more visible and formal Viral Evolution ™ becomes, the fewer chances of its success. Stealth does not mean secret. The objectives can be clearly stated by senior management in a single copy, but then the least we talk and the more we act the better. Also, informality does not mean chaos. That means allow informal conversations and facilitate non-formal, non-structured life of the organization. In fact, the greatest risk to Viral Change ™ is the almost inevitable tendency to formalise more than necessary; something that happens sometimes spontaneously in the ranks of management due to the way we do things.This learned is not to say that the change with Viral ™ There is no structure or organization in question. In fact most of the things described here require some planning and a small team backstaging, to coordinate and facilitate better environment. For example, the champions need to be identified and called for help, they should be collected and presented with the ideas, new attitudes and the way we offer them to work. Gatherings periodicals of this community are needed to extract stories and monitor progress. Line management needs to be informed about what is expected of them and, most importantly, what we did not expect - as the manager directly champions of their division,… So there is still a good deal social engineering necessary, but not on the scale of the traditional cascade 'plumbing system "type.In summary, the change Viral ™ provides a framework for the creation and propagation of a change that is supported by theory and practice. On the theoretical side, it has a strong background in the social sciences, behavioral sciences and the modern theory of the network (which is itself built from computing and complexity theory). In practical terms, we have significant experiences of this approach to work in practical terms. For example, a collaborative environment, created in the next three to six months, and durable yet established after three years.Let me finally to update the original premises at the beginning of this document and summarize the main ingredients of Viral Change ™, both local and distinctive actions: 1. The organization is not linear, so it is logical to look for small interventions ( 'disturbance'), with potentially large impact2. Behaviors are the only real currency for change3. A small - to strengthen all of these behaviors must be chosen4. The spread of these behaviors is through connections internal networks - for the most part rather invisible - and thanks to the initial influence of a small group of individuals (champions). These are the dimensions that I mentioned at the beginning, when I used the words "under certain circumstances'5. A change in through the stories of travel and change is unfolding as an internal problem of the epidemic success6. Measuring success is a continuous effort by qualitative data and parameters adapted, designed in part by the champions "community7. Leadership is distributed throughout the body, with leaders and managers plays a formal role in supporting and facilitating, not command and control8. Viral Change ™ as a process should be fairly informal and invisible for this to work. However, this invisibility and the informal sector must be developed. These characteristics are contrary to the tradition of organization and management may need to adjust their mindset9. The main risk of failure comes from too much structure and the natural tendency to revert to a standard of "managing change programme'10. Au-delà des objectifs évidents de Viral ™ Changement dans la création de certains changements culturels, ce cadre nous donne l'occasion de remettre en question notre conception de l'organisation elle-même, nos pratiques de leadership et la capacité des dirigeants à naviguer à travers les niveaux de l'ambiguïté qui sont nécessaires pour Une entreprise agile. Un autre ayant moins de commandement et de contrôle et où la vie est une découverte de l'apparition constante de nouvelles possibilités au-delà de ce qui est formellement écrit, planifié, mesuré, communiqués et célébrée.
Business online blog