Business Day

Changing the way we deal with change

Adaptabili­ty and agility are crucial for survival, writes GRANT SIEFF

-

I T IS a well-worn management refrain that change is the only constant — but these days, as author Gary Hamel points out, the rate of change has gone into overdrive, and it is shaking things up. Change is now multifacet­ed, relentless, rebellious, and occasional­ly, shocking — and it is becoming more so as each day passes.

Unimagined advances in technology, from the invention of the internet to the decoding of the human genome, as well as social and environmen­tal pressures, such as climate change and the refugee crisis, are causing the very ground beneath our feet to shift.

One thing all of these changes have in common: they have come about as a result of change, and they have created additional explosions of change. Change begets change. And we have to figure out a way to keep up.

To survive the tumult, organisati­ons and individual­s will need to adopt the sort of strategic thinking that allows them to change and adapt in unpreceden­ted ways.

A great paradox of our time is that change itself is changing. The future is becoming less and less predictabl­e based on what is already known, or on what has happened in the past.

As this happens, nothing is sacred, not even century-old venerable institutio­ns seem invulnerab­le to change.

The business models of the past were not built to be adaptable, but adaptabili­ty and agility are crucial for survival today. This is the contradict­ion that lies at the heart of most modern-day businesses, and is a problem that managers and leaders need to grapple with and solve.

Hamel, a management expert and founder of internatio­nal management consulting firm, Strategos, says this of change in his book What Matters Now: “The only thing that can be safely predicted is that sometime soon, your organisati­on will be challenged to change in ways for which it has no precedent. Your company will either adapt or falter; rethink its core assumption­s or fumble.”

That change can bring opportunit­y as well as disaster is quite commonly understood, but whether organisati­ons will innovate or crumble when faced with inevitable change depends on their capacity for adaptation.

Today, they need to adapt more quickly than they have ever done before.

The problem is, as Hamel writes: “Those early management pioneers, a hundred years ago, set out to build companies that were discipline­d, not resilient. They understood that efficiency comes from well-mapped business models and routine.

“Adaptabili­ty, on the other hand, demands a willingnes­s to occasional­ly abandon these routines — and in most organisati­ons, there are few incentives to do so. That’s why change tends to come in only two varieties: the trivial and the traumatic. Review the history of the average corporatio­n and what can be seen is long periods of incrementa­l fiddling, punctuated by occasional bouts of frantic, crisis-driven change.”

But it seems like a great waste for an organisati­on to run into a crisis that it cannot manage and lose billions of rand in market value before it gets serious about change. A much better approach for those companies looking to future competitiv­eness would be to get changeread­y. As Hamel writes in the book: “A turnaround is a poor substitute for timely transforma­tion. That’s why we need to change the way we change.”

AND how do we change the way we change? It starts with revisiting and reorientin­g management and leadership skills towards how to make relevant change happen. All those careful systems, models, and routines perfected more than 100 years ago, need to go.

Managers today need to unlearn the lessons of the past and discover a new range of critical skills to stock a new strategy toolbox that allows them to engage others in conversati­on for change.

As it stands, the traditiona­l strategy toolbox will not allow organisati­ons to change the way they change.

Too often, present-day corporate conversati­ons for change are missing one critical component: the psychology of strategy. This is the one single component that determines how leaders go about managing change.

Typically, business analysis tends to be the primary driver for making strategic choices, instead of a deeper understand­ing of human behaviour — again this means throwing out the routines that organisati­ons are most comfortabl­e with.

Organisati­ons, when making decisions, still rely most heavily on quantitati­ve parameters — the business case, for instance, because it supposedly offers a measure of certainty to decision-making about some future position that is inherently uncertain.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with business analysis or business case developmen­t — these are essential tools for the GM’s toolbox — but thought leaders must be willing to explore further whether they can get more effective results from a deeper understand­ing of human behaviour.

This is something most organisati­ons remain uncomforta­ble with, because it requires an understand­ing of the personalit­ies and behaviour preference­s of those who are integral to organisati­onal success and the major influencer­s of strategic decision-making: both the people in the organisati­on as well as the customers and stakeholde­rs.

This takes hard work and time to develop. But it is this kind of multifacet­ed approach to tackling the complexiti­es of management, leadership and change that will allow organisati­ons to charter the uncertain territorie­s of change.

JOHN Kotter, an authority on leadership and change, a best-selling author, and Harvard professor, offers some insights on making change happen.

He emphasises the power of bringing about desired change by attending to how people may be feeling — which he suggests is even more telling than how these very same people may be thinking about the new behaviours expected of them for change.

Kotter goes so far as to assert that the core of a new way of dealing with change is tuning into the hearts and minds — in that order — of those most affected by, and most able to bring about, change.

He suggests that by aiming to change how people feel and by role-modelling a desired behaviour, organisati­ons become even more effective in making change happen than if they relied only on applying analysis and logic in an attempt to persuade others to think and, as a result, behave differentl­y.

In other words, it is the ability and effectiven­ess of general management and leadership to place the human dimension of their organisati­on and their organisati­onal culture at the forefront of change in a way that gives them the greatest influence over strategic change.

To optimise strategic alignment in an ever-changing world, leaders must be ready to adapt their personal style and focus to ensure that the dominant organisati­onal culture and current strategy are aligned optimally with the demands of the market place.

A new approach to change must begin with a willingnes­s to explore the relationsh­ips between general management and leadership, leadership and behaviour, strategy and innovation, and, ultimately, strategy and change.

It is only when leaders understand how important the connectivi­ty of these elements are, that they can hope to change the way they change and build organisati­onal resilience that will allow their organisati­ons to stand strong when faced with wave after wave of uncertaint­y and change.

Sieff is the CEO of IC Growth Group and convenes a course on strategic thinking and execution for growth at the University of Cape Town Graduate School of Business.

That change can bring opportunit­y as well as disaster is quite commonly understood, but whether organisati­ons will innovate or crumble when faced with inevitable change depends on their capacity to adapt

 ?? Picture: BLOOMBERG ?? Management expert Gary Hamel says that when your company is challenged to change, it will either adapt or falter, rethink its core assumption­s, or fumble.
Picture: BLOOMBERG Management expert Gary Hamel says that when your company is challenged to change, it will either adapt or falter, rethink its core assumption­s, or fumble.
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa