 |
Today's business environment is littered with the carcasses
of impeccable solutions that either failed outright or achieved
much less than was expected. Why? Because of poor implementation.
In the world of governance, you will find an even worse track
record. Even allowing for the vastly wider scope of something
like a national immunization program, or keeping track of the
weaponry under the Department of Defense, you encounter failed
efforts to manage the related public-policy change effectively.
The ugly truth is that far too many efforts to end critical
problems or build on incredible opportunities fall short of
what organizations, and governments, need to accomplish. Much
of the time, behind these failures to execute are leaders who
lack a basic understanding of the fundamental human dynamics
in play. These leaders fall into three classes:
FIRST, those who do not see the outcome of the effort as their
responsibility. They think their job is to define a new objective,
either by promulgating a rule or by passing a law. In short,
they point the direction, and others can then march or meander.
This type of leader does not much care what happens after they
do their part (that is, promulgate or legislate). They expect
to be rewarded by their constituents or superiors for good intentions
-- and that's enough.
SECOND, those who think promulgation or legislation will actually
result in a change; they sincerely expect their rule or statute
will cause others to adopt new ways of behaving. Unlike the
first type of leader sketched above, this second group isn't
cynical; mostly, they are naïve about the complexity of
change. Or, when they spot "trouble" they make do
with knee-jerk, event-specific explanations for what has gone
wrong -- instead of seeking the patterns and pathologies that
could explain the roots of their failures.”
THIRD are those who "hope" their change will take
hold -- in the organization or society overall -- but are not
surprised when it fails. They are cynics by default as opposed
to cynics by calculation. They typically end up in the blame-shift
mode of "others messed up my effort." In Washington
or other national capitals, they think the appropriators did
not put sufficient resources behind the effort, or that the
bureaucrats did not implement the idea in the true spirit in
which it was offered.
For different reasons, all three are missing how human dynamics
determine the ultimate results of their efforts. Like the industrial-age
monopolists, they worry about inputs and process within a self-defined
world. But, in the knowledge age, where real results are the
only valuable measure, they hurt their followers and potentially
disserve their nation.
All of which brings us to the two most important terms in this
document:
• Installation is about placement --
managing the tangible aspects of inserting a new initiative
into the environment. Depending upon the perspective of the
observer, in the U.S., a legislator would see installation as
introduction of a bill or possibly enactment of that bill. In
the Executive Branch, a mid-level bureaucrat would see it as
rule-making or "process-engineering." The leaders
in the White House would see it as announcing a position and
calling for its immediate adoption by the Congress or having
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) send around a directive
based on an existing law.
• Realization is when the key purpose
for an initiative is actually achieved. Realization is much
easier to spot in the private sector, where cost savings can
be confirmed, or increases in customer loyalty measured. In
the public arena, it is harder to define and measure with reliability;
nonetheless, the distinction between installation and realization
is very real, and it's time public-sector leaders (a) emphasize
the distinction, on the way to (b) expecting realization. For
legislators, that might mean getting a bill signed into law,
even if it required overriding a presidential veto. For the
Executive Branch, it could be creation of an internal system
of measuring outcomes of various programs and successfully using
that data to guide future budgetary decisions. Together, the
Legislative, Executive and public could look to lower crime
statistics, higher SAT scores, more effective job-training (whether
the programs get people employed) or safer air transportation,
as evidence of real change.
In government, to "install" is to announce, declare,
legislate, set up. To "realize" the intent of these
decisions and laws is to achieve the related results.
Since few executives or elected officials would seem ready to
bet their careers and institutions on major initiatives that
produce little or nothing, why is "realization" such
a difficult challenge? Because change is a powerful force with
a major influence on our lives. And yet, we can't actually touch
or directly see it. Whether you manage a division for IBM, or
are responsible for transforming the FAA, you can't hold "organizational
change" in your hand. Sure, you can produce an organizational
chart, but a chart is not a change in outcomes.
In the end, we can only confirm change's presence by observing
the trail of influence it leaves behind as it passes through
individuals, groups and field offices.
When new initiatives are introduced into a work environment,
they cause shock waves of disruption to emanate from their initial
points of impact. These "points of impact" are physical
and also political locations -- the realms where new entities
are introduced and disrupt the expectations of the people they
touch.
Around each point of impact is a human landscape that reacts
to and dictates the success of the change being introduced.
The degree to which a new initiative spreads throughout a work
environment -- or dies an early death -- is directly dependent
on the human dynamics reflected in these landscapes.
That brings us right back to the core information needed by
managers and policy-makers: When a big change is in the offing,
who will resist and why? Are we committed enough to manage this
resistance? How do we create commitment to a successful implementation?
How many other changes are competing for people's attention
right now? And how much change can be accepted, by what groups
and institutions, and on what timetable?
<< Previous
| Next >> |
