Methodology

In this context, methodology refers to the underlying ethos and approach that will be used to underpin all of the decisions and actions taken by the consulting team and client group.

In recent years, change has become a discipline in its own right. It is now recognized that it is important to pay attention to the underlying dynamics that drive successful business transformation. In particular, understand what choices you have when faced with change issues. Although these choices are many, two factors should be taken into consideration.

• First, to what extent will the programme be planned in advance of the change? Should every detail be strapped down well in advance or can things be left to chance?

• Second, to what extent will receivers of the transition be aware of what is happening? Is it to be conducted in the public domain or will it be hidden from view, where any shift is viewed as happening naturally as opposed to an external change?

In considering these two drivers, it is possible to identify four schools of change management that are commonly seen in industry, namely accidental, backstage, controlled and debate. In looking in more depth at each of these four styles, it becomes possible to develop a simple change management matrix (Fig. 9.1). Each of the four quadrants is seen to have a particular management style that may be applied in different circumstances.

Accidental style

When a group of young children play together, the way they interact, the games they play and the overall behaviour of the group has a chaotic feel. An observer sees the chance of anything productive coming out of the antics as accidental in nature. It is often left to the capability of a single teacher to manage the demands, tantrums and excesses of over 200 apparently wild animals. However, within this zoo-like scenario, there are a number of powerful rules that control how the group operates.

The children are effectively operating as a self-organizing system. Although the head teacher has set out ground rules, within these the children operate as free agents. Examples of these rules are: keep on the hard surface; no swearing or fighting; and everyone must line up for dinner at a certain time. Since the teachers are also aware of these rules, they can initiate a change and within reason guarantee that a desired outcome is achieved.

For example, if a football is left in the playground at the start of break then within minutes a football match will start and will keep the children amused for the duration of the break. Alternatively, just drawing some white lines will trigger specific games associated with the patterns. The children also understand that if the head teacher suddenly walks out into the middle of the area and blows a whistle, they are expected to stop what they are doing and listen for instructions.

Let's assume that organizations can operate in a similar fashion by conforming to a shared set of common rules and norms. As a result, rather than trying to dominate and deliver an outcome, some consultants might choose to spend their time trying to understand the rules that drive an organization. Once understood, they can make engagements that might seem chaotic or random but which will deliver the desired outcome. The engagements are not highly planned and have little visibility — but they still have a clear purpose.

A regional manager within a retail organization might have a level of stock wastage higher than the industry norm. She must reduce it to an acceptable level. Clearly one option is to issue dictates, discipline people or change the formal stock control procedures. Now this might "apparently" work but the ingrained behaviours are likely to surface once the manager's attention is focused elsewhere.

However, by using the accidental methodology, the manager might attempt to understand what rules or norms drive the wastage to happen and why it is seen to be acceptable by local managers. It might be that at the store level, wastage costs are attributed to a hidden budget line, visible only to the regional manager and the finance department. This rule means that the operational managers are not actually affected by the wastage, so it is not part of their frame of reference. By simply changing the bonus indicators, for example, the regional manager might be able to deliver a radical reduction in wastage. The change will have been managed without any real control or planning and its visibility would have been limited, but the end result is a successful change.

This is clearly a high-risk strategy and is reliant upon the trust of the organization to adopt any changes that are promoted by the management team. The consultant's role in this management style is more about helping to develop a suitable environment for the change to occur rather than formalizing any direct approach.

Backstage style

Millions of people have seen the movie Titanic. The boat scenes are amazing, to the point where the audience believes they are actually part of the production. Although star actors play a critical frontstage role, it is often the backstage people that can make or break such a film. Compare the technical prowess of Titanic with the out-takes shown on television: doors won't open, walls fall over and props fail to perform. When you think about these two scenarios, the power of the backstage processes is apparent.

The key to managing any backstage process is preparation, preparation and more preparation. Just to generate a simple scene in a film will take hours of pre-production effort. This process is invisible to the audience since they just see a two-second jump off a cliff. The same idea is seen in the way that some transformation programmes are stage managed by consultants. The installation of a new IT system, the shift to a new quality directive or the adoption of a new legal ruling: all of these will be highly managed and planned but will in the main be invisible to the end user until the point of handover.

The process is often concerned with the exercise of power, persuasion and political skills. It involves intervening in political and cultural systems, influencing, negotiating and selling ideas and meaning to the owners and recipients of the change and mobilizing the necessary power to effect the backstage activity (Buchanan and Body, 1992).

Imagine that you are to install a new quality system into a medium-sized manufacturing company. You might choose to operate across a number of backstage areas. The first step is to agree the content of the system with the directors of the company since the structure of any quality system will potentially lock in a set of standards and processes. Next you might need to undertake a degree of negotiation with all the key stakeholders to ensure that the content of the system fits with their map of the world. Last of all, much of the backstage work will be focused on managing people's feelings. The quality system is right for the business, but if people "feel" upset or concerned about its adoption then the whole change process will be fraught with problems. So, although there will be effort applied in developing the new system, a large chunk of the work will be focused on the backstage issues, the unseen aspects that will never be apparent to the end user.

The backstage model is one that people use intuitively every day. Persuading the child to eat her cabbage; hiding a pill in the dog's food; or flirting with the boss's PA so as to get some time in the diary. The question to consider is the extent to which it is undertaken as a manipulative tool for personal gain. When it is overtly used, you must be careful that you are not seen as using the process in a duplicitous way just to further your personal goals. In working with a client group, there will always be a degree of suspicion about your actions. When this model is used it is imperative that it is used openly and without any hidden agendas. This doesn't mean that you go round telling everyone what is happening, simply that if people ask about the process being used that you take time to explain it.

Controlled style

This type of change is like the processes used to manage a large construction project such as the Channel Tunnel. The scale and risk mean that everything down to the last nut and bolt must be forecast and controlled to ensure that the change is managed to time, cost and quality.

The control model is based upon a deterministic framework. This means that the consultant makes the assumption that it is possible to predict and control the future according to a set of rules. Plans are made, resources booked and people hired all on the premise that the change will follow a known path. The change is then managed using the exception method, where the goal is to minimize any variance or disturbance in the system. Accidents will be frowned upon, deviation is not allowed and failure to hit a milestone will cause apoplexy.

Where the surrounding issues are managed by the consultant or client then this is clearly effective. However, where you or the client do not control all the levers then it is quite dangerous. In building a rigid plan and locking people into a controlled system, all of the eggs are definitely in one basket and sudden changes in the environment can result in costly and time-consuming last-minute actions.

This methodology is perfect for the delivery of fixed outcomes, particularly where the plan is built using logical cause and effect reasoning. This is why it is used with such success in the construction of missiles, houses and a host of other projects. The crucial aspect is that (barring the weather) it is dependent on your ability to control all the environmental factors.

Debate style

Think about the case of a merger between two large organizations. Project managers, probably using the control methodology outlined above, will wrap up all the mechanistic issues. However, there will be elements of the merger that cannot be managed using a highly planned style. In particular, how will the two cultures come together?

When you try to merge cultures, the desired outcome is reasonably clear but it is very difficult to plan down to the last detail what will happen and when. People are people and have their biases, preferences and particular styles of thinking and behaving. Any action plan will have some critical milestones or tasks but there is likely to be much debate as people struggle to come to terms with new ways of working. Only through a process of sharing and working together will people start to understand what value their new partners will be able to contribute.

The debate style of change is seen in many areas. Think about the traditional way that a senior team will develop vision and values. It often falls to a consultant to organize a workshop. This will be preceded by a meeting with each of the directors to develop an understanding of their beliefs about company values. This initiates the debate process, whereby each person is encouraged to talk about their views on what the company values should be. This offers people the necessary time and space to share their schematic view of the world. As they talk to the consultant, they start to firm up their beliefs so that once they get to the workshop they will have a firmer view of their desired outcome. At the workshop, these personal schemas are displayed, shared and (if all goes well) will merge to become a shared schema, one that is communicated to a wider audience.

Another example is the way strategy can slowly develop within an organization. One view is that the control approach should be used, where logical processes are used to build a corporate strategy. Another view is that strategy emerges from dialogue and debate that goes on between the key players in the business. This might happen in formal meetings but in many cases is the odd comment as people meet in corridors or coffee rooms.

The end result is that the debate model happens all the time but is often not recognized. As a process, it is difficult to recognize because it is so natural and embedded in the content of the change. Trying to understand how a decision was made, or a mission or strategy developed can be quite painful as people struggle to understand how the change took place. However, the benefit is that when the change is used, it is locked in at the desire level in the change ladder. As such it will have a greater degree of passion and permanence.

Four-quadrant model

In bringing these change styles together, the resulting four-quadrant model is seen in Fig. 9.1. In this simple matrix, it is seen that each quadrant aligns four styles: accidental, backstage, control and debate. This suggests that in many cases you might have to take a decision to use one particular style. Should the change be controlled or is it best to take the accidental route? Should the development of the outcome be through open debate or is it more appropriate to push the discussion into the backstage and develop answers that people are mandated to follow?

However, it is possible to offer a holistic framework, a hybrid model that builds on the strengths of each of the four quadrants and yet tries to avoid their weakness. In drawing upon each of the four quadrants, it becomes possible to develop another option, that of the emergent style — a fifth way that sits in the middle of the matrix (Fig. 9.2).

Emergent style

If a group of people decides to travel around the world on a back-packing holiday, which of the four styles would be appropriate? The accidental approach is exciting but could leave them sitting as hostages in a war zone. The backstage model would be ineffective because only the travel agent would know the itinerary. The control model seems to be the most practical but using a deterministic approach in a chaotic world will only lead to frustration and cost increases as they struggle to get back in line with 'the plan'. Finally the debate model is pretty inappropriate since the group might have fun discussing where to go next but the trip will probably take three years longer than expected. The option is to adopt a change process that allows for clearly defined outcomes but with the flexibility to be adaptive.

The emergent model allows an agreed outcome to be delivered through people interacting according to their own sets of behaviour and to create a framework for action without specifying the action to be taken. As consultant, you will set the goals, boundaries and basic operating rules but leave the action and detail up to those directly involved in the engagement. The benefit is the development of a flexible plan that allows people to respond to changes.

This type of approach is often seen in culture development programmes where the end goal may be understood but the deployment process needs to be flexible enough to cope with the needs of different managers. Imagine that you have been asked to deal with a problem of poor morale in a large corporation. You might have agreed a measurable outcome with your client but the actual processes and tools can only be determined once you are inside the system. This is because the needs of the group rather than your client's needs drive the choice of a change tool. For example, if the morale issues are in the open and being discussed at a team meeting then it is useful to rely on peer review and open events between people and their managers. If, however, the issues are buried deep in the culture then focus groups and one-on-one coaching sessions are more appropriate.

In considering the five-segment model, each of the four primary models (accidental, backstage, control and debate) has a clear role to play in managing change. However, emergent style is practised widely but not knowingly. I use the word "knowingly" quite deliberately. When change is being managed according to one of the four primary styles, any deviation from the preferred approach is viewed as a failure. Hence, the person running a project using the control model might view deviation and variability as a problem. Conversely, someone using the accidental style might forcibly resist any attempt by the organization to impose formal controls or milestones on to the engagement.

The emergent school of change is something that people use all the time — namely in their diary system. A manager's life is often in tension between planned and unplanned events. It is a battle between order and disorder seen in the deletions and changes to most people's diaries. However, it is the practised ability to manage unplanned and emergent interactions that allows a manager to respond to changes in the market place. Once the boundaries are set and simple rules are understood then it is possible to create a balance between accidental and controlled change.

Although this model segments your approach into five different methodologies, clearly it is never so simplistic. Any change methodology must be focused entirely on the needs of the client and the context, as such each one should be unique. However, what this model does highlight is that there are alternatives to the more typical command and control approach to managing change.

Usually the change process will use all of the options at different times. Imagine you have been asked to lead a project team to develop a new Christmas toy. You only have nine months left to design, develop and deliver the toy to the shops. Clearly with such a tight deadline, and with the fact that the environment is under your control, you may well opt to take a control approach, clearly setting out the goals, milestones and delivery dates for each of the project teams. However, you should also recognize that this is a creative as well as a delivery process and as such it would be unwise to constrain people's freedom to innovate and make mistakes. You try to ensure that the lower-level change processes have a degree of freedom and space so that people can experiment within the teams. A map of the change style used for different elements within the project might look like the list set out in Table 9. 1.

The decision to adopt a particular change style is not black and white and in many cases might not actually be a decision that has to be taken. In some cases, it is best to let things happen naturally and simply be aware of the choice that is made in case things start to go wrong.

Table 9.1. Change types

Project activity	Change type
Project plan	Control: primarily because of the fixed delivery date and the ability to manage the close environment
Review meetings	Debate: allows the necessary flexibility to find out how the project is progressing, but with space for some of the shadow issues to surface
Design meetings	Accidental: the need to offer the designers space to innovate is paramount at this stage
Customer focus groups	Accidental: again the primary goal is to understand customers' expectations and to give them the space to talk and describe their feelings
Pilot trials	Control: since this feedback will affect the launch decision, the marketing data must be very accurate and controlled
Measurement process	Backstage: the primary focus should be on delivery of the product; the goal is to keep any project measurement procedures to a minimum. They will only operate in the background, using exception reports where issues surface

Back pocket question Do I understand what methodology will be used to drive the change process?