DISCUSSION In Chapter 11 of your textbook, you read the top ten factors that can lead to the initiative decay and the eight sets of actions to ensure sustainable change. Discuss the validity of these

Images of Managing and Sustaining Change

Top ten factors that can lead to initiative decay

We have to recognize that management may have no direct control over many of the factors that can jeopardize the sustainability of change. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to anticipate and to counter those factors in some manner.

For changes to “stick,” they must “seep into the bloodstream,” become “the new norm,” “baked into the organization,” or, as Kotter (2007, p. 103) observes, accepted as “the way we do things around here.” That is, it must become an integral part of the organizational culture, or what has also been described as the “mind-set” of the organization’s members (Lawson and Price, 2003). This means that new structures, processes, and working practices are no longer seen as “change,” with all the emotional, political, and operational connotations that accompany that term. Unless this happens, change may prove to be just a passing diversion, a temporary disruption. However, as we explored in chapter 5, culture change is not a straightforward process. As Lou Gerstner (2002, pp. 182 and 187) once said, referring to his leadership of the successful transformation of IBM:

I came to see, in my time at IBM, that culture isn’t just one aspect of the game—it is the game. Vision, strategy, marketing, financial management—any management system, in fact—can set you on the right path and can carry you for a while. But no enterprise—whether in business, government, education, health care, or any area of human endeavor—will succeed over the long haul if those elements aren’t part of the DNA.

What you can do is create the conditions for transformation. You can provide incentives. You can define the marketplace realities and goals. But then you have to trust. In fact, in the end, management doesn’t change culture. Management invites the workforce itself to change the culture.

What are the main threats to the sustainability of change? Buchanan et al. (2007) identify the top ten factors that can lead to initiative decay:

1. The initiators and drivers move on. Managers who have been successful at implementing change may be more interested in moving on to the next change challenge than in staying around for a period of relative stability. In addition, experienced andPage 358 successful change agents may be sought by other divisions or organizations, which have other novel change agendas to progress. It can be difficult to turn down promotion opportunities such as these.

1. Accountability for development has become diffuse. The responsibility for driving change is normally (but not always) clear, with formal change or project management roles, often accompanied by steering groups, task forces, and implementation teams. Once the changes are in place and operational, those individuals and groups return to their normal roles. There are change managers, but organizations tend not to appoint “sustainability managers.” Just who is accountable for ensuring that the changes are now embedded, that they become the new norm, is often unclear.

1. Knowledge and experience with new practices are lost through staff turnover. Staff training and development programs usually support change initiatives that involve new skills and knowledge. Everyone who is going to be affected will be invited to attend these programs, creating a “critical mass” of participants for training sessions. However, as individuals subsequently leave and are replaced, it may be difficult to repeat those development sessions for small numbers of participants. The knowledge that is lost when staff members leave is therefore not replaced.

1. Old habits are imported with recruits from less dynamic organizations. Linked to factor 3, new recruits bring with them habits and working practices from previous employers. Once again, they are unlikely to be offered retraining, but instead expected to learn new practices “on the job” by observation. The likelihood of initiative decay thus increases with the numbers of new recruits.

1. The issues and pressures that triggered the initiative are no longer visible. As we discussed in chapter 3, organizations usually change in response to a combination of internal problems, external environmental challenges, and new opportunities. Those triggers, however, may not be durable; the problems are solved, the challenges are addressed, the opportunities are developed. The rationale for change can thus fade with the triggers, and again lead to initiative decay.

1. New managers want to drive their own agendas. For personal satisfaction, visibility, and reputation, newly appointed managers often want to appear to be innovative and energetic and to “make a mark” on their new organization. This means enhancing their careers by designing and implementing their own change initiatives. Continuing with work that was started by others is less interesting and satisfying and could limit one’s promotion prospects.

1. Powerful stakeholders are using counter-implementation tactics to block progress. Successful implementation does not always silence the power brokers. They may remain in their posts, and if they did not welcome the changes, they may wait for opportunities to undermine the changes. This becomes easier if factor 1 applies; the initiators are no longer there to protect their changes.

1. The pump-priming funding runs out. Many changes are allocated additional funding to support the implementation costs. This can include the temporary appointment of specialist staff or external consultants and the cost of training programs to provide new skills and knowledge. As those resources are consumed and the temporary appointments and the training come to an end, support for the changes is weakened and initiative decay becomes more likely.Page 359

1. Other priorities come on stream, diverting attention and resources. Most organizations today do not suffer a shortage of internal and external pressures for change. As other urgent problems and opportunities arise, the focus inevitably shifts away from past pressures and the changes that those prompted. If those past problems have indeed been addressed, then it may be appropriate for attention and resources to move to more urgent issues. However, this will generate problems if the shift in focus to new priorities simply re-creates the situation that past changes were implemented to address.

1. Staff at all levels suffer initiative fatigue, and enthusiasm for change falters. The experience, or the perception, of “too much change,” successful or not, can threaten sustainability by generating a desire to “get back to normal.” Initiative decay can result when management does not pay attention to the pace and timing of the changes that staff are expected to deal with and generate burnout and initiative fatigue by attempting to drive too many changes too rapidly.

Initiative decay can be caused by many factors, at different levels of analysis. Several of those factors may be operating in a given context at any one time. In the absence of proactive management steps to address those factors, initiative decay, and not sustained change, may be the norm.