Below is an article we wrote for the Organization Development Journal that was published in Spring 2017.

I am writing this because the editor of the Organization Development Journal asked if I would become a “gadfly for the field of Organization Development and Change.” This piqued my interest; however, I was not certain if I wanted to be a gadfly and inquired its meaning. I found two definitions: “a fly that bites” and a “person who acts like a provocative stimulus.” I decided that I might be able to stimulate some interest, particularly looking at how we have gone about making organizational change in the past. By looking at our earlier approach, I wanted to see if I could uncover the mistakes we have made that may have caused reported change project failures of up to 70%. I learned in my career that making organizational change work effectively was not an easy task. When I applied the “change process,” more times than not it failed, and that is what this article is all about: I learned that if I modified the way I went about helping organizations change, then I would have more successes instead of failures. The rest of this article explores how I changed my change process to make change work. As many consultants and clients have experienced, OD projects often fail or are unsuccessful in achieving the desired outcomes. While I am generally a pretty fast learner, getting the change process right took me several years of banging my head against the wall with more failures than I’d like to admit to. This paper is a recount of how I finally developed the knowledge and skills to substantially improve my success rate. My learning is captured in a new book, Grasp the Situation: Lessons Learned in Change Leadership, by Varney, McFillen & Janoch (2015). What follows is a description of how I applied the change process in my early days and how I altered it as I began to understand how to make change initiatives work. It is clear to me now that my failed projects were a direct response to the inadequate design of the founding fathers’ change process. Most of the time I failed to understand what needed to be changed before I designed an intervention. Here is the change process I employed in my early years (Cummings & Worley, 2005).

• Entering and contracting
• Diagnosing the organization, groups, and jobs
• Collecting and analyzing information
• Feeding back diagnostic information
• Designing interventions

I tried to faithfully apply these steps as I worked with clients, but often I would race through the steps and skipped one of them altogether because the client did not want to take the time and was in a hurry to get the project completed. When we fail to carefully scrutinize and employ the steps in the change process, however, it is easy to overlook potential flaws, which can ultimately lead to failure. Here is a true story to give you an example: Tom Baxley, the Division Operation director, and Ed Weaver, the plant manager of the production operation, were visiting a Japanese auto assembly plant located in California. The teamwork displayed by the workers on the production line was exceptional, and the visitors were clearly impressed. “With employees on the line making work decisions, it’s hard to tell where the management begins,” they commented to each other. The plant manager of the Japanese plant had his desk located out in the open, right in the middle of the work area. When they caught up with him on their tour of the plant they asked him what impact the team concept had had on plant performances. He replied, “It’s all of us working together that make the product we produce the highest quality in our industry.” On the flight home following their day long whirlwind tour, Tom and Ed began reviewing the notes they had made during their visit. They decided right then that they needed to find a consultant who could help them implement some of the teaming ideas they had seen in the Japanese operation. The very next day Ed met with his Human Resources director, Hal Hobart, who also served as the company’s chief spokesman during union negotiations. Ed asked Hal to “find me a consultant and get him in here ASAP! Tom Baxley has given us the go ahead to make some real improvements in our plant.”

Within a few days Hal had identified Dr. V, the author of a book entitled Building Productive Teams (1989). When Hal learned that Dr. V also worked as a consultant, they invited him to come to the plant where they outlined what they wanted to achieve. “We need more teamwork between supervision and our workforce,” they explained. “We want to learn how the Japanese make it work and then we want to duplicate it here.” Dr. V told them, “I have just the thing, and my program has worked in ‘tons’ of organizations across the country.” “Wonderful,” said Ed, “put your proposal in writing and let’s get started immediately.” According to the consultant’s proposal, all 200 of the first line supervisors should be taken offsite for three days of team training. They would be broken into 15-person groups and the consultant would teach each group “how to build and manage production teams that will improve efficiency and plant production.” Tom Baxley approved the proposal, and Ed Weaver told the consultant, “Begin as soon as you can so we can get this thing off the ground.”

For the next 26 weeks small groups of supervisors were pulled off the job for the team building training program. Each time a group returned to the plant, the supervisors would begin to initiate the changes that they had learned in their team training. However, they found this difficult to do because they had to continue operating in a traditional supervisor/subordinate structure, limited by the plant rules, the union agreement, company paperwork  requirements, and deadlines, etc. They quickly came to realize that nothing had changed on the job except that they were now expected to act like “team leaders.” Even before the last group of supervisors had been through the training, things began to go wrong. Productivity declined and union grievances increased. Tom Baxley pulled Ed into his office and demanded “immediate action to fix the problems.” Ed called an emergency meeting of his shift supervisors and insisted that they “fix the problems right now.” One of the shift supervisors asked, “Can we just forget about that team stuff—it’s taking all of our time and it keeps us from getting our regular work done?” Ed snapped back, “Forget about that team junk; we can discuss that later.” Of course later never came, and things continued to get worse until Tom Baxley received a call from his boss at headquarters demanding that they put an
end to this “costly experiment.”

It seems that Ed could not see the connection between the “team stuff” and plant performance. Clearly, what the Japanese had learned over the years is that how people work together is related to how hard they work and how they personally impact productivity.

This blind teaming intervention cost the company over $400,000, including a decrease in productivity and an increase in grievances, more quality measure assurance problems, etc. What Tom and Ed failed to understand was that the Japanese had created an organizational culture that fit the management practices employed in their plant. Applying the Japanese practices in a completely different culture simply could not work. Trying to force the supervisors to act like team players in a traditional union based culture was like trying to mix oil and water.

Tom and Ed, like many managers, failed to appreciate the cultural differences between their plant and the Japanese-run plant. If the consultant had tested the ideas in the organization by getting the union reaction or asking supervisors for their views, they might have predicted the difficulties before spending a penny on the “teaming” idea. They paid me what I had proposed when I “entered and contracted” for the work. I should never have taken the money.

What do you think went wrong in the way I handled this change project? Here’s what I learned from this failure:

•  Never contract with a client without first studying the client organization, and in this case, it was necessary to also study the Japanese company.
• Always be sure that what the client wants will work in their organization.
• If what the client wants looks like it will work, then contract with the client to conduct a detailed study of fit.
• If it appears to be a good fit, then agree to another contract to design and test a team development plan with the objective of changing the work culture for the organization. If this test is successful, then prepare a master contract describing in detail how the changes will be made.

The story just cited was a career wake-up call—this is when I realized that what the client wanted to do would not work. Enter a good friend of mine, Dr. Jim McFillen. Jim was new to ODC and had just been appointed the director of the EMOD program. He admitted that he really knew very little about ODC and the change process used in the field. He asked me to join him in teaching a course in the program related to the change process. I cautioned him that I employed a hands-on experiential method of teaching, and I thought it might conflict with his more traditional lecture style.

This was the beginning of a consulting/teaching relationship, which, over years of learning through trial and error, led us to writing our book, Grasp the Situation: Lessons Learned in Change Leadership (2015). This book is based on our technical paper, “Organizational Diagnosis: An Evidence based Approach” (McFillen, O’Neil, Balzer & Varney, 2013), in The Journal of Change Management. Below is the abstract for this article:

Organizational diagnosis plays a critical role in organizational change initiatives in terms of both choosing appropriate interventions and contributing to readiness-to-change within an organization. Although numerous authors identify diagnosis as an integral component of the change process and many have recommended specific theories and models that should be used in diagnosis, little attention has been given to the diagnostic process itself. The lack of rigor in the diagnostic process and the misdiagnoses that follow are likely to be significant factors in the high failure rate of change initiatives reported in the literature. This article reviews evidence-based diagnosis in engineering and medicine, summarizes the basic steps found in those diagnostic processes, identifies three cause–effect relationships that underlie evidence-based diagnoses, and suggests four spheres of knowledge that must intersect to guide the diagnostic process. Based upon that review, an evidence-based approach is proposed for organizational diagnosis with the goals of bringing more scientific rigor to the diagnostic process, improving the appropriateness of interventions chosen for a given situation, and contributing to readiness-to-change among organizational members. Finally, specific steps are recommended for advancing the state of organizational diagnosis in the field of organization development and change.

The organizational diagnostic model (ODM) for making change in organizations is now the change process model employed in the EMOD program at Bowling Green State University. It is introduced in the first course as the core change process to be employed in all organizational change, and then there is a separate course, Organizational Diagnosis, where the technology and application is taught. The validity of the process is witnessed in the students’ final capstone course, where they apply the ODM in actual organizational projects. Success rates for these projects are very high, which is evidence to the value of using the scientific process in organizational change. The change process resulting from the trial and error research that yielded the best results is as follows:

• Recognize the symptoms of a present or potential problem.
• Collect information (data) that will help you to understand the problem.
• Develop an explanation of what the problem is (hypothesis).
• Test your hypothesis to make sure that it accurately describes the problem (validating).
• Based on your valid hypothesis, design an intervention that will fix the problem. Apply the intervention and measure the results to be sure that the problem is solved.

There are some general guidelines when applying these steps. At the first sign of a problem, slow down. Don’t jump right in and try to solve the problem. Second, when you first sense a problem, track it down. Don’t wait for it to explode into a crisis. Another suggestion is to put sensing points in place to alert you to impending problems. For example, watch for variances in performance. Also remember that facts and data have the power to influence people to change, particularly if it affects them. Finally once you have designed and installed a change, always check to make sure it is correcting the problem. Don’t assume that it will work.

Remember leaders, managers, and supervisors are all change agents, although they usually do not see themselves in that role. Typically they see themselves as controlling, managing, and inspiring staff members to perform effectively and to produce desired results. Yet conditions and the work environment are continually changing, requiring leaders to oversee and effectively manage change.

Years of trial and error by many change agents has provided some general guidelines that help assure that change efforts will succeed. Keep these guidelines in mind as you work through change projects. Most importantly, never try to change anything without the full awareness of all the stakeholders, as well as their support and commitment to the change. Also, as you are making the change, continuously take the pulse of the top leaders to be sure that they remain committed to the change. Another important point is when you doubt your own commitment and support for the change, don’t try to implement it—it will fail. Never fall into the trap of feeling infallible, believing that you can do almost anything and make it work. This one will destroy your credibility. It is not uncommon for change agents to make change because they think they will receive positive recognition, a promotion, or a raise. Be careful of this motivation; it is easy to fall into this mindset. Another common mistake made at the initial stages of a project is to classify people based on first impressions. Remember, first impressions can be misleading, so keep an open mind. Next, always make sure you have your top leadership know where you are planning to take them. Throughout the process, be attentive to your leaders and hold their hands to reassure them that you know what you are doing. Lastly, it is important to continuously foster open-mindedness with your stakeholders. This keeps your stakeholders from
jumping to conclusions before all of the facts are in. We recognized that an important contributor to successful change is a motivated workforce. As a general rule, people don’t like to change. They are comfortable and prefer things the way they are, which means they are usually ready to resist change efforts. If you try to initiate change without forewarning and involving them, don’t be surprised if they resist your efforts.

Here are some ideas for keeping the troops on board, thus avoiding foot dragging and out-and-out resistance: Remember to engage the stakeholders in the diagnostic and planning stages of change. When stakeholders are engaged in designing the change intervention, they will feel a sense of ownership and support for the change. Remember to seek out and engage all of the stakeholders. Be careful not to overlook some distant leader, an isolated group, or perhaps even a customer. They can scuttle your change project. Simply asking for someone’s opinion can help to get them engaged from the start. And finally, don’t expect people to be receptive to learning something new if they don’t feel the need to change something they are comfortable doing. Often the hardest part of making change work is getting leaders to lead. Leaders at the top of the organization who were not committed to the change negatively affected a number of our projects. They were willing to allow us to attempt change because they thought it was a good thing to do or because they had heard of some other organization doing it. Usually it was a “flavor of the month” that the leader at the top of the organization had been informed on or read about in some magazine. Often their approach was “We’ll just give it a try and see what happens. After all, what can it hurt?” Here are some straightforward ideas to help avoid leader disengagement which is one of the most important issues in making change in organizations:

• Never decide to implement a change just because it worked for someone else. If you think it might be good for your organization, test it in your organization to see its effect before you go into it whole hog.
• If your test run is positive, show all the stakeholders how it will benefit them.
• Watch out for leaders who return from a conference or a seminar hell-bent on implementing someone else’s hot-button idea. It’s easy to go along with them, but stand your ground and test before you implement.

Last but not least, culture plays an important role. Culture is a broad term used to describe what an organization is like. It can tell you what people are accustomed to and what they like about their organization. It can help you to identify which changes are likely to work and which ones won’t. Trying to force change into an organization is a recipe for failure. For example, if you introduce people into a group whose culture is radically different from those that are already in the group, you can expect resistance and even rejection of the new people. Similarly, you can’t employ changes in an organization simply because it worked for another, and the story about the Japanese auto assembly plant is a good example of this. Organizations create a particular culture that fit their management practices, and trying to utilize a similar model in a completely different culture and management practice is a recipe for failure. Always study and understand your organization’s culture before you undertake major change. For more information on culture, I recommend Edgar H. Schein’s (2004) Organizational Culture and Leadership.

It is easy to tell you about what I learned in these past several years. It is another thing to influence you to change your way of making change in organizations. My suggestion is to think about the way you make change. You may already use a form of organizational diagnosis close to our model. If so, consider changes in your approach that will help you get more hits than misses. If, on the other hand, the change process proposed here looks interesting, learn more by reading the research article cited earlier in this paper and browse our website for the full text of my book. Remember—by learning to apply the scientific method of making change, you become more professional in conducting your work, which will assure that you will be respected and the client/leader will have your back.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

References

Cummings, T., & Worley, C.G. (2005). Organization development and change. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.

McFillen, J. M., O’Neil, D. A., Balzer, W. K., & Varney, G. H. (2013). Organizational diagnosis: An evidence-based approach. Journal of Change Management, 13(2), 223- 246. doi:10.1080/14697017.2012.679290

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Varney, G. H. (1989). Building productive teams: An action guide and resource book. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Varney, G. H., Janoch, S., & McFillen, J. M. (2015). Grasp the situation: Lessons learned in change leadership. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse.