How to Manage Change: Leave the Details to Those Who Have to Live with Them

The classic hierarchal pyramid with employees at the bottom and layers of supervisors, managers, and directors is not only expensive to maintain but is often cumbersome and full of bottlenecks. Frequently, silos are created around fiefdoms where managers tend to look out for their own turf rather than for the company's interests as a whole. That’s why it has been disappearing for the past ten years or so.

A way many have found to eliminate red tape and become more responsive to the marketplace is to move to a flat organization made up of interlocking, empowered teams. This not only saves a great deal of money because expensive dead weight is removed, things often get done a lot faster, allowing companies to better serve their customers and to react faster to moves by competitors. The question is, what is the best way to implement a wholesale change?

At least two methods exist. The common approach is called the 'define and convince' model, in which an assigned expert (or expert team) defines the change specifics and convinces the rest of the organization to follow its blueprint. This model works best in small companies, largely because of the close link between the company's leadership and its workers. But in larger businesses, the process is slow, seldom wins widespread buy-in, and often requires extensive infrastructure and procedural controls to maintain the change.

The other method is the 'participative model.' The leader defines change goals and challenges the work force to define and execute the changes. The actual process involves a series of large-group sessions for convergence and decision-making, positioned around smaller group activities where testing and learning takes place.

This approach works best because rapid assimilation of knowledge and buy-in usually takes place across the organization. Nevertheless, old line managers often hesitate to use it because the approach requires the leaders to trust workers with the details instead of those they perceive as experts. Participative change roles are quite different from those in the design-and-convince approach. Leaders are not order-givers, but participants in learning and decision-making. Experts don't define specific changes, they provide substantive knowledge. Workers are not 'change targets,' but full participants in learning and decision-making.

To make change happen using this method, leaders need to set targets and make strategic decisions. Those who must live with the details decide on the details.

To make sure change happens in a timely fashion, milestones need to be set that will mark key points of system integration. These are large group sessions that are forums for defining, understanding and decision-making on major integration issues. Viable options are identified prior to these meetings by a cross-functional team made up of representatives from each area of the organization affected by the change. This team presents these options, and leaves the final decisions to the full group, thus assuring maximum buy-in by everyone.

It may help to call on experts to facilitate the large-group sessions so they run smoothly, but experience has shown the key to successful change is to have the people who make decisions on the specifics be the ones who have to live with them.

If you found this article of interest, you may wish to read the book LEAN ENTERPRISE LEADER: HOW TO GET THINGS DONE WITHOUT DOING IT ALL YOURSELF. Click here to see it on Amazon. The participatory change process is dealt with there in more detail.