b est of hbr choosing strategies for...
TRANSCRIPT
www.hbr.org
B
EST
OF
HBR
Choosing Strategies for Change
by John P. Kotter and Leonard A. Schlesinger
•
Included with this full-text
Harvard Business Review
article:
The Idea in Brief—the core idea
The Idea in Practice—putting the idea to work
1
Article Summary
2
Choosing Strategies for Change
A list of related materials, with annotations to guide further
exploration of the article’s ideas and applications
11
Further Reading
Reprint R0807M
B
E S T
O F
H B R
Choosing Strategies for Change
page 1
The Idea in Brief The Idea in Practice
CO
PYR
IGH
T ©
200
8 H
AR
VA
RD
BU
SIN
ESS
SC
HO
OL
PU
BLI
SHIN
G C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N. A
LL R
IGH
TS
RE
SER
VE
D.
Faced with stiffer competition and dizzying technological advances, companies often must change course to stay competitive. But most change initiatives backfire. That’s because many managers take a one-size-fits-all approach to change. They assume they can combat resistance, a notorious ob-stacle, by involving employees in the de-sign of the initiative. But that works only when employees have the information they need to provide useful input. It’s disas-trous when they don’t. Also, managers often don’t tailor the speed of their change strategy to the situation. For instance, they may apply a go-slow approach even when an impending crisis calls for rapid change.
To lead change successfully, Kotter and Schlesinger recommend:
•
Diagnosing the types of resistance you’ll encounter—and tailoring your countermeasures accordingly.
To illus-trate, with employees who fear the adjust-ments the change will require, provide training in new skills.
•
Adapting your change strategy to the situation.
For example, if your company must transform to avert an imminent crisis, accelerate your initiative—even if that risks greater resistance.
The authors suggest these steps for managing change successfully:
1. ANALYZE SITUATIONAL FACTORS
Ask yourself:
•
“How much and what kind of resistance do we anticipate?”
•
“What’s my position relative to resisters—in terms of my power and the level of trust between us?”
•
“Who—me or others—has the most accu-rate information about what changes are needed?”
•
“How urgent is our situation?”
2. DETERMINE THE OPTIMAL SPEED OF CHANGE
Use your analysis of situational factors to decide how quickly or slowly your change should proceed. Move quickly if the organiza-tion risks plummeting performance or death if the present situation isn’t changed. But pro-ceed slowly if:
•
Resistance will be intense and extensive
•
You anticipate needing information and commitment from others to help design and implement the change
•
You have less organizational power than those who may resist the change
3. CONSIDER METHODS FOR MANAGING RESISTANCE
Method How to Use When to Use Advantages Drawbacks
Education Communicate the desired changes and reasons for them
Employees lack information about the change’s implications
Once persuaded, people often help implement the change
Time consuming if lots of people are involved
Participation Involve potential resisters in designing and implementing the change
Change initiators lack sufficient information to design the change
People feel more committed to making the change happen
Time consuming, and employees may design inappropriate change
Facilitation Provide skills training and emotional support
People are resisting because they fear they can’t make the needed adjustments
No other approach works as well with adjustment problems
Can be time consuming and expensive; can still fail
Negotiation Offer incentives for making the change
People will lose out in the change and have considerable power to resist
It’s a relatively easy way to defuse major resistance
Can be expensive and open managers to the possibility of blackmail
Coercion Threaten loss of jobs or promotion opportunities; fire or transfer those who can’t or won’t change
Speed is essential and change initiators possess considerable power
It works quickly and can overcome any kind of resistance
Can spark intense resentment toward change initiators
B
EST
OF
HBR
Choosing Strategies for Change
by John P. Kotter and Leonard A. Schlesinger
harvard business review • july–august 2008 page 2
CO
PYR
IGH
T ©
200
8 H
AR
VA
RD
BU
SIN
ESS
SC
HO
OL
PU
BLI
SHIN
G C
OR
PO
RA
TIO
N. A
LL R
IGH
TS
RE
SER
VE
D.
Editor’s Note:
A lot has changed in the world of management since 1979, when this article first appeared, but one thing has not: Companies the world over need to change course. Kotter and Schlesinger provide a practical, tested way to think about managing that change.
“It must be considered that there is nothingmore difficult to carry out, nor more doubtfulof success, nor more dangerous to handle,than to initiate a new order of things.”
1
In 1973, The Conference Board asked 13 em-inent authorities to speculate what significantmanagement issues and problems woulddevelop over the next 20 years. One of thestrongest themes that runs through their sub-sequent reports is a concern for the ability oforganizations to respond to environmentalchange. As one person wrote: “It follows thatan acceleration in the rate of change will re-sult in an increasing need for reorganization.Reorganization is usually feared, because itmeans disturbance of the status quo, a threatto people’s vested interests in their jobs, and
an upset to established ways of doing things.For these reasons, needed reorganization isoften deferred, with a resulting loss in effec-tiveness and an increase in costs.”
2
Subsequent events have confirmed the im-portance of this concern about organizationalchange. Today, more and more managersmust deal with new government regulations,new products, growth, increased competition,technological developments, and a changingworkforce. In response, most companies ordivisions of major corporations find thatthey must undertake moderate organizationalchanges at least once a year and majorchanges every four or five.
3
Few organizational change efforts tend tobe complete failures, but few tend to be entirelysuccessful either. Most efforts encounterproblems; they often take longer than ex-pected and desired, they sometimes kill mo-rale, and they often cost a great deal in termsof managerial time or emotional upheaval.More than a few organizations have not eventried to initiate needed changes because the
Choosing Strategies for Change
•
•
•
B
EST
OF
HBR
harvard business review • july–august 2008 page 3
managers involved were afraid that they weresimply incapable of successfully implement-ing them.
In this article, we first describe variouscauses for resistance to change and then outlinea systematic way to select a strategy and set ofspecific approaches for implementing an orga-nizational change effort. The methods describedare based on our analyses of dozens of success-ful and unsuccessful organizational changes.
Diagnosing Resistance
Organizational change efforts often run intosome form of human resistance. Althoughexperienced managers are generally all tooaware of this fact, surprisingly few take timebefore an organizational change to assess sys-tematically who might resist the change initia-tive and for what reasons. Instead, using pastexperiences as guidelines, managers all toooften apply a simple set of beliefs—such as“engineers will probably resist the change be-cause they are independent and suspicious oftop management.” This limited approach cancreate serious problems. Because of the manydifferent ways in which individuals and groupscan react to change, correct assessments areoften not intuitively obvious and requirecareful thought.
Of course, all people who are affected bychange experience some emotional turmoil.Even changes that appear to be “positive” or“rational” involve loss and uncertainty.
4
Nev-ertheless, for a number of different reasons,individuals or groups can react very differ-ently to change—from passively resisting it,to aggressively trying to undermine it, to sin-cerely embracing it.
To predict what form their resistance mighttake, managers need to be aware of the fourmost common reasons people resist change.These are a desire not to lose something ofvalue, a misunderstanding of the change andits implications, a belief that the change doesnot make sense for the organization, and alow tolerance for change.
Parochial self-interest.
One major reasonpeople resist organizational change is thatthey think they will lose something of value asa result. In these cases, because people focuson their own best interests and not on those ofthe total organization, resistance often resultsin “politics” or “political behavior.”
5
Considerthese two examples:
• After a number of years of rapid growth,the president of an organization decidedthat its size demanded the creation of a newstaff function—New Product Planning andDevelopment—to be headed by a vice presi-dent. Operationally, this change eliminatedmost of the decision-making power that thevice presidents of marketing, engineering, andproduction had over new products. Inasmuchas new products were very important in thisorganization, the change also reduced the vicepresidents’ status which, together with power,was very important to them.
During the two months after the presidentannounced his idea for a new product vicepresident, the existing vice presidents eachcame up with six or seven reasons the new ar-rangement might not work. Their objectionsgrew louder and louder until the presidentshelved the idea.
• A manufacturing company had tradition-ally employed a large group of personnel peo-ple as counselors and “father confessors” to itsproduction employees. This group of counse-lors tended to exhibit high morale because ofthe professional satisfaction they received fromthe “helping relationships” they had with em-ployees. When a new performance appraisalsystem was installed, every six months thecounselors were required to provide each em-ployee’s supervisor with a written evaluation ofthe employee’s “emotional maturity,” “promo-tional potential,” and so forth.
As some of the personnel people immedi-ately recognized, the change would alter theirrelationships from a peer and helper to moreof a boss and evaluator with most of the em-ployees. Predictably, the personnel counselorsresisted the change. While publicly arguingthat the new system was not as good for thecompany as the old one, they privately put asmuch pressure as possible on the personnelvice president until he significantly altered thenew system.
Political behavior sometimes emerges be-fore and during organizational change effortswhen what is in the best interests of one indi-vidual or group is not in the best interests ofthe total organization or of other individualsand groups.
While political behavior sometimes takesthe form of two or more armed camps publiclyfighting things out, it usually is much moresubtle. In many cases, it occurs completely
John P. Kotter
is the Konosuke Mat-sushita Professor of Leadership, Emeri-tus, at Harvard Business School and the author of
A Sense of Urgency
, forthcom-ing from Harvard Business Press.
Leonard A. Schlesinger
has been named the 12th president of Babson College, in Babson Park, Massachusetts.
Choosing Strategies for Change
•
•
•
B
EST
OF
HBR
harvard business review • july–august 2008 page 4
under the surface of public dialogue. Althoughscheming and ruthless individuals sometimesinitiate power struggles, more often than notthose who do are people who view their poten-tial loss from change as an unfair violation oftheir implicit, or psychological, contract withthe organization.
6
Misunderstanding and lack of trust.
Peo-ple also resist change when they do not under-stand its implications and perceive that itmight cost them much more than they willgain. Such situations often occur when trustis lacking between the person initiating thechange and the employees.
7
Here is an example:• When the president of a small midwest-
ern company announced to his managersthat the company would implement a flexibleworking schedule for all employees, it neveroccurred to him that he might run into resis-tance. He had been introduced to the conceptat a management seminar and decided to useit to make working conditions at his companymore attractive, particularly to clerical andplant personnel.
Shortly after the announcement, numer-ous rumors begin to circulate among plantemployees—none of whom really knew whatflexible working hours meant and many ofwhom were distrustful of the manufacturingvice president. One rumor, for instance, sug-gested that flexible hours meant that mostpeople would have to work whenever theirsupervisors asked them to—including eve-nings and weekends. The employee associa-tion, a local union, held a quick meeting andthen presented the management with a non-negotiable demand that the flexible hoursconcept be dropped. The president, caughtcompletely by surprise, complied.
Few organizations can be characterized ashaving a high level of trust between employ-ees and managers; consequently, it is easy formisunderstandings to develop when change isintroduced. Unless managers surface misun-derstandings and clarify them rapidly, theycan lead to resistance. And that resistancecan easily catch change initiators by surprise,especially if they assume that people onlyresist change when it is not in their bestinterest.
Different assessments.
Another commonreason people resist organizational change isthat they assess the situation differently fromtheir managers or those initiating the change
and see more costs than benefits resultingfrom the change, not only for themselves butfor their company as well. For example:
• The president of one midsize bank wasshocked by his staff’s analysis of the bank’s realestate investment trust (REIT) loans. This com-plicated analysis suggested that the bank couldeasily lose up to $10 million and that the possi-ble losses were increasing each month by 20%.Within a week, the president drew up a plan toreorganize the part of the bank that managedREITs. Because of his concern for the bank’sstock price, however, he chose not to releasethe staff report to anyone except the new REITsection manager.
The reorganization immediately ran intomassive resistance from the people involved.The group sentiment, as articulated by oneperson, was: “Has he gone mad? Why in God’sname is he tearing apart this section of thebank? His actions have already cost us threevery good people [who quit], and have crip-pled a new program we were implementing[which the president was unaware of] to re-duce our loan losses.”
Managers who initiate change often as-sume both that they have all the relevant in-formation required to conduct an adequateorganization analysis and that those who willbe affected by the change have the samefacts, when neither assumption is correct. Ineither case, the difference in information thatgroups work with often leads to differences inanalyses, which in turn can lead to resistance.Moreover, if the analysis made by those notinitiating the change is more accurate thanthat derived by the initiators, resistance is ob-viously “good” for the organization. But thislikelihood is not obvious to some managerswho assume that resistance is always bad andtherefore always fight it.
8
Low tolerance for change.
People also resistchange because they fear they will not be ableto develop the new skills and behavior thatwill be required of them. All human beings arelimited in their ability to change, with somepeople much more limited than others.
9
Orga-nizational change can inadvertently requirepeople to change too much, too quickly.
Peter F. Drucker has argued that the majorobstacle to organizational growth is manag-ers’ inability to change their attitudes andbehavior as rapidly as their organizationsrequire.
10
Even when managers intellectually
Choosing Strategies for Change
•
•
•
B
EST
OF
HBR
harvard business review • july–august 2008 page 5
understand the need for changes in the waythey operate, they sometimes are emotionallyunable to make the transition.
It is because of people’s limited tolerance forchange that individuals will sometimes resist achange even when they realize it is a good one.For example, a person who receives a signifi-cantly more important job as a result of anorganizational change will probably be veryhappy. But it is just as possible for such a per-son to also feel uneasy and to resist giving upcertain aspects of the current situation. A newand very different job will require new anddifferent behavior, new and different relation-ships, as well as the loss of some satisfactorycurrent activities and relationships. If thechanges are significant and the individual’stolerance for change is low, he might beginactively to resist the change for reasons evenhe does not consciously understand.
People also sometimes resist organizationalchange to save face; to go along with thechange would be, they think, an admissionthat some of their previous decisions or be-liefs were wrong. Or they might resist becauseof peer group pressure or because of a super-visor’s attitude. Indeed, there are probablyan endless number of reasons why peopleresist change.
11
Assessing which of the many possibilitiesmight apply to those who will be affected by achange is important because it can help amanager select an appropriate way to over-come resistance. Without an accurate diagno-sis of possibilities of resistance, a manager caneasily get bogged down during the changeprocess with very costly problems.
Dealing with Resistance
Many managers underestimate not only thevariety of ways people can react to organiza-tional change, but also the ways they can posi-tively influence specific individuals and groupsduring a change. And, again because of pastexperiences, managers sometimes do not havean accurate understanding of the advantagesand disadvantages of the methods with whichthey
are
familiar.
Education and communication.
One of themost common ways to overcome resistance tochange is to educate people about it before-hand. Communication of ideas helps peoplesee the need for and the logic of a change. Theeducation process can involve one-on-one dis-
cussions, presentations to groups, or memosand reports. For example:
• As part of an effort to make changes in adivision’s structure and in measurement and re-ward systems, a division manager put togethera one-hour audiovisual presentation that ex-plained the changes and the reasons for them.Over a four-month period, he made this presen-tation no fewer than a dozen times to groups of20 or 30 corporate and division managers.
An education and communication programcan be ideal when resistance is based on inade-quate or inaccurate information and analysis,especially if the initiators need the resisters’help in implementing the change. But somemanagers overlook the fact that a program ofthis sort requires a good relationship betweeninitiators and resisters or that the latter maynot believe what they hear. It also requirestime and effort, particularly if a lot of peopleare involved.
Participation and involvement.
If the initi-ators involve the potential resisters in some as-pect of the design and implementation of thechange, they can often forestall resistance.With a participative change effort, the initia-tors listen to the people the change involvesand use their advice. To illustrate:
• The head of a small financial services com-pany once created a task force to help designand implement changes in his company’s re-ward system. The task force was composed ofeight second- and third-level managers fromdifferent parts of the company. The president’sspecific charter to them was that they recom-mend changes in the company’s benefit pack-age. They were given six months and asked tofile a brief progress report with the presidentonce a month. After they had made their rec-ommendations, which the president largely ac-cepted, they were asked to help the company’spersonnel director implement them.
We have found that many managers havequite strong feelings about participation—sometimes positive and sometimes negative.That is, some managers feel that there shouldalways be participation during change efforts,while others feel this is virtually always a mis-take. Both attitudes can create problems for amanager, because neither is very realistic.
When change initiators believe they do nothave all the information they need to designand implement a change, or when they needthe wholehearted commitment of others to do
Many managers
underestimate the
variety of reactions to
change and their power
to influence those
responses.
Choosing Strategies for Change
•
•
•
B
EST
OF
HBR
harvard business review • july–august 2008 page 6
so, involving others makes very good sense.Considerable research has demonstrated that,in general, participation leads to commitment,not merely compliance.
12
In some instances,commitment is needed for the change to be asuccess. Nevertheless, the participation processdoes have its drawbacks. Not only can it lead toa poor solution if the process is not carefullymanaged, but also it can be enormously timeconsuming. When the change must be madeimmediately, it can take simply too long toinvolve others.
Facilitation and support.
Another way thatmanagers can deal with potential resistance tochange is by being supportive. This processmight include providing training in new skills,or giving employees time off after a demand-ing period, or simply listening and providingemotional support. For example:
• Management in one rapidly growing elec-tronics company devised a way to help peopleadjust to frequent organizational changes.First, management staffed its human resourcedepartment with four counselors who spentmost of their time talking to people who werefeeling burnt out or who were having difficultyadjusting to new jobs. Second, on a selectivebasis, management offered people four-weekminisabbaticals that involved some reflectiveor educational activity away from work. And,finally, it spent a great deal of money on in-house education and training programs.
Facilitation and support are most helpfulwhen fear and anxiety lie at the heart of resis-tance. Seasoned, tough managers often over-look or ignore this kind of resistance, as wellas the efficacy of facilitative ways of dealingwith it. The basic drawback of this approach isthat it can be time consuming and expensiveand still fail.
13
If time, money, and patiencejust are not available, then using supportivemethods is not very practical.
Negotiation and agreement.
Another wayto deal with resistance is to offer incentives toactive or potential resisters. For instance, man-agement could give a union a higher wage ratein return for a work rule change; it could in-crease an individual’s pension benefits inreturn for an early retirement. Here is anexample of negotiated agreements:
• In a large manufacturing company, the di-visions were very interdependent. One divisionmanager wanted to make some major changesin his organization. Yet, because of the interde-
pendence, he recognized that he would be forc-ing some inconvenience and change on otherdivisions as well. To prevent top managers inother divisions from undermining his efforts,the division manager negotiated a writtenagreement with each. The agreement specifiedthe outcomes the other division managerswould receive and when, as well as the kinds ofcooperation that he would receive from themin return during the change process. Later,whenever the division managers complainedabout his changes or the change process itself,he could point to the negotiated agreements.
Negotiation is particularly appropriatewhen it is clear that someone is going to loseout as a result of a change and yet his or herpower to resist is significant. Negotiated agree-ments can be a relatively easy way to avoidmajor resistance, though, like some other pro-cesses, they may become expensive. And oncea manager makes it clear that he will negotiateto avoid major resistance, he opens himself upto the possibility of blackmail.
14
Manipulation and co-optation.
In some sit-uations, managers also resort to covert at-tempts to influence others. Manipulation, inthis context, normally involves the very selec-tive use of information and the consciousstructuring of events.
One common form of manipulation is co-optation. Co-opting an individual usually in-volves giving him or her a desirable role inthe design or implementation of the change.Co-opting a group involves giving one of itsleaders, or someone it respects, a key role inthe design or implementation of a change.This is not a form of participation, however,because the initiators do not want the adviceof the co-opted, merely his or her endorse-ment. For example:
• One division manager in a large multibusi-ness corporation invited the corporate humanrelations vice president, a close friend of thepresident, to help him and his key staff diag-nose some problems the division was having.Because of his busy schedule, the corporate vicepresident was not able to do much of the actualinformation gathering or analysis himself, thuslimiting his own influence on the diagnoses.But his presence at key meetings helped com-mit him to the diagnoses as well as the solu-tions the group designed. The commitmentwas subsequently very important because thepresident, at least initially, did not like some of
Choosing Strategies for Change
•
•
•
B
EST
OF
HBR
harvard business review • july–august 2008 page 7
the proposed changes. Nevertheless, after dis-cussion with his human relations vice presi-dent, he did not try to block them.
Under certain circumstances co-optationcan be a relatively inexpensive and easy wayto gain an individual’s or a group’s support(cheaper, for example, than negotiation andquicker than participation). Nevertheless, ithas its drawbacks. If people feel they arebeing tricked into not resisting, are not beingtreated equally, or are being lied to, they mayrespond very negatively. More than one man-ager has found that, by his effort to give somesubordinate a sense of participation throughco-optation, he created more resistance thanif he had done nothing. In addition, co-optationcan create a different kind of problem if thoseco-opted use their ability to influence thedesign and implementation of changes inways that are not in the best interests of theorganization.
Other forms of manipulation have draw-backs also, sometimes to an even greater de-gree. Most people are likely to greet whatthey perceive as covert treatment or lies witha negative response. Furthermore, if a man-
ager develops a reputation as a manipulator,it can undermine his ability to use neededapproaches such as education/communica-tion and participation/involvement. At theextreme, it can even ruin his career.
Nevertheless, people do manipulate otherssuccessfully—particularly when all other tac-tics are not feasible or have failed.
15
Having noother alternative, and not enough time to edu-cate, involve, or support people, and withoutthe power or other resources to negotiate, co-erce, or co-opt them, managers have resortedto manipulating information channels in orderto scare people into thinking there is a crisiscoming that they can avoid only by changing.
Explicit and implicit coercion.
Finally, man-agers often deal with resistance coercively.Here they essentially force people to accept achange by explicitly or implicitly threateningthem (with the loss of jobs, promotion possibil-ities, and so forth) or by actually firing ortransferring them. As with manipulation,using coercion is a risky process because inevita-bly people strongly resent forced change. Butin situations where speed is essential and wherethe changes will not be popular, regardless of
Approach Commonly used in situations Advantages Drawbacks
Education + communication
Where there is a lack of informa-tion or inaccurate information and analysis.
Once persuaded, people will often help with the implementation of the change.
Can be very time consum-ing if lots of people are involved.
Participation + involvement
Where the initiators do not have all the information they need to design the change, and where others have considerable power to resist.
People who participate will be com-mitted to implementing change, and any relevant information they have will be integrated into the change plan.
Can be very time consum-ing if participators design an inappropriate change.
Facilitation + support
Where people are resisting because of adjustment problems.
No other approach works as well with adjustment problems.
Can be time consuming, expensive, and still fail.
Negotiation + agreement
Where someone or some group will clearly lose out in a change, and where that group has considerable power to resist.
Sometimes it is a relatively easy way to avoid major resistance.
Can be too expensive in many cases if it alerts others to negotiate for compliance.
Manipulation + co-optation
Where other tactics will not work or are too expensive.
It can be a relatively quick and inexpensive solution to resistance problems.
Can lead to future problems if people feel manipulated.
Explicit + implicit coercion
Where speed is essential, and the change initiators possess consider-able power.
It is speedy and can overcome any kind of resistance.
Can be risky if it leaves people mad at the initiators.
Exhibit I
Methods for dealing with resistance to change
Choosing Strategies for Change
•
•
•
B
EST
OF
HBR
harvard business review • july–august 2008 page 8
how they are introduced, coercion may be themanager’s only option.
Successful organizational change efforts arealways characterized by the skillful applicationof a number of these approaches, often in verydifferent combinations. However, successful ef-forts share two characteristics: Managers em-ploy the approaches with a sensitivity to theirstrengths and limitations (see Exhibit I) and ap-praise the situation realistically.
The most common mistake managers makeis to use only one approach or a limited set ofthem
regardless of the situation
. A surprisinglylarge number of managers have this problem.This would include the hard-boiled boss whooften coerces people, the people-orientedmanager who constantly tries to involve andsupport his people, the cynical boss whoalways manipulates and co-opts others, theintellectual manager who relies heavily oneducation and communication, and thelawyerlike manager who usually tries tonegotiate.
16
A second common mistake that managersmake is to approach change in a disjointed andincremental way that is not a part of a clearlyconsidered strategy.
Choice of Strategy
In approaching an organizational change situ-ation, managers explicitly or implicitly makestrategic choices regarding the speed of the ef-
fort, the amount of preplanning, the involve-ment of others, and the relative emphasis theywill give to different approaches. Successfulchange efforts seem to be those where thesechoices both are internally consistent and fitsome key situational variables.
The strategic options available to managerscan be usefully thought of as existing on a con-tinuum (see Exhibit II).
17
At one end of thecontinuum, the change strategy calls for a veryrapid implementation, a clear plan of action,and little involvement of others. This type ofstrategy mows over any resistance and, at theextreme, would result in a fait accompli. Atthe other end of the continuum, the strategywould call for a much slower change process, aless clear plan, and involvement on the part ofmany people other than the change initiators.This type of strategy is designed to reduce resis-tance to a minimum.
18
The further to the left one operates on thecontinuum in Exhibit II, the more one tends tobe coercive and the less one tends to use theother approaches—especially participation;the converse also holds.
Organizational change efforts that are basedon inconsistent strategies tend to run into pre-dictable problems. For example, efforts thatare not clearly planned in advance and yet areimplemented quickly tend to become boggeddown because of unanticipated problems. Ef-forts that involve a large number of people,
Fast Slower
Clearly planned. Not clearly planned at the beginning.
Little involvement of others. Lots of involvement of others.
Attempt to overcome any resistance. Attempt to minimize any resistance.
Exhibit II
Strategic continuum
Key situational variables
The amount and type of resistance that is anticipated.
The position of the initiators vis-à-vis the resisters (in terms of power, trust, and so forth).
The locus of relevant data for designing the change and of needed energy for implementing it.
The stakes involved (for example, the presence or lack of presence of a crisis, the consequences of resistance and lack of change.)
Choosing Strategies for Change
•
•
•
B
EST
OF
HBR
harvard business review • july–august 2008 page 9
but are implemented quickly, usually becomeeither stalled or less participative.
Situational factors.
Exactly where a changeeffort should be strategically positioned onthe continuum in Exhibit II depends on fourfactors:
1. The amount and kind of resistance that isanticipated.
All other factors being equal, thegreater the anticipated resistance, the moredifficult it will be simply to overwhelm it, andthe more a manager will need to move towardthe right on the continuum to find ways to re-duce some of it.
19
2. The position of the initiator vis-à-vis the re-sisters, especially with regard to power
. The lesspower the initiator has with respect to others,the more the initiating manager must move tothe right on the continuum.
20
Conversely, thestronger the initiator’s position, the more he orshe can move to the left.
3. The person who has the relevant data for de-signing the change and the energy for imple-menting it.
The more the initiators anticipatethat they will need information and commit-ment from others to help design and imple-ment the change, the more they must move tothe right.
21
Gaining useful information andcommitment requires time and the involve-ment of others.
4. The stakes involved.
The greater the short-run potential for risks to organizational per-formance and survival if the present situationis not changed, the more one must move tothe left.
Organizational change efforts that ignorethese factors inevitably run into problems. Acommon mistake some managers make, for ex-ample, is to move too quickly and involve toofew people despite the fact that they do nothave all the information they really need to de-sign the change correctly.
Insofar as these factors still leave a managerwith some choice of where to operate on thecontinuum, it is probably best to select apoint as far to the right as possible for botheconomic and social reasons. Forcing changeon people can have just too many negativeside effects over both the short and the longterm. Change efforts using the strategies onthe right of the continuum can often help de-velop an organization and its people in usefulways.
22
In some cases, however, knowing the fourfactors may not give a manager a comfortable
and obvious choice. Consider a situation wherea manager has a weak position vis-à-vis thepeople whom he thinks need a change and yetis faced with serious consequences if thechange is not implemented immediately. Sucha manager is clearly in a bind. If he somehow isnot able to increase his power in the situation,he will be forced to choose some compromisestrategy and to live through difficult times.
Implications for managers.
A manager canimprove his chance of success in an organiza-tional change effort by:
1. Conducting an organizational analysisthat identifies the current situation, problems,and the forces that are possible causes of thoseproblems. The analysis should specify the ac-tual importance of the problems, the speedwith which the problems must be addressed ifadditional problems are to be avoided, and thekinds of changes that are generally needed.
2. Conducting an analysis of factors relevantto producing the needed changes. This analysisshould focus on questions of who might resistthe change, why, and how much; who has in-formation that is needed to design the change,and whose cooperation is essential in imple-menting it; and what is the position of the initi-ator vis-à-vis other relevant parties in terms ofpower, trust, normal modes of interaction, andso forth.
3. Selecting a change strategy, based on theprevious analysis, that specifies the speed ofchange, the amount of preplanning, and thedegree of involvement of others; that selectsspecific tactics for use with various individualsand groups; and that is internally consistent.
4. Monitoring the implementation process.No matter how good a job one does of initiallyselecting a change strategy and tactics, some-thing unexpected will eventually occur duringimplementation. Only by carefully monitoringthe process can one identify the unexpected ina timely fashion and react to it intelligently.
Interpersonal skills, of course, are the key tousing this analysis. But even the most out-standing interpersonal skills will not make upfor a poor choice of strategy and tactics. And ina business world that continues to becomemore and more dynamic, the consequences ofpoor implementation choices will become in-creasingly severe.
Authors’ note: We wish to thank Vijay Sathe, aprofessor of management at Claremont Gradu-
Choosing Strategies for Change
•
•
•
B
EST
OF
HBR
harvard business review • july–august 2008 page 10
ate University’s Drucker School, in California,for his help in preparing this article.
Notes1. Niccolò Machiavelli,
The Prince
.2. Marvin Bower and C. Lee Walton, Jr., “Gearing a Businessto the Future,” in
Challenge to Leadership
(The ConferenceBoard, 1973).3. For recent evidence on the frequency of changes, seeStephen A. Allen, “Organizational Choice and General In-fluence Networks for Diversified Companies,”
Academy ofManagement Journal
, September 1978.4. For example, see Robert A. Luke, Jr.,“A Structural Ap-proach to Organizational Change,”
Journal of Applied Behav-ioral Science
, September–October 1973.5. For a discussion of power and politics in corporations, seeAbraham Zaleznik and Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries,
Powerand the Corporate Mind
(Houghton Mifflin, 1975); and Rob-ert H. Miles,
Macro Organizational Behavior
(Goodyear,1978).6. See Edgar H. Schein,
Organizational Psychology
(Prentice-Hall, 1965).7. See Chris Argyris,
Intervention Theory and Method
(Addison-Wesley, 1970).8. See Paul R. Lawrence, “How to Deal with Resistance toChange,” HBR May–June 1954; reprinted as HBR Classic,January–February 1969.9. For a discussion of resistance that is personality based,see Goodwin Watson, “Resistance to Change,” in
The Plan-ning of Change
, eds. Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth F. Benne,and Robert Chin (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1969).10. Peter F. Drucker,
The Practice of Management
(Harperand Row, 1954).11. For a general discussion of resistance and reasons for it,
see Gerald Zaltman and Robert Duncan,
Strategies forPlanned Change
(John Wiley, 1977).12. See, for example, Alfred J. Marrow, David F. Bowers, andStanley E. Seashore,
Management by Participation
(Harperand Row, 1967).13. Zaltman and Duncan,
Strategies for Planned Change
.14. For an excellent discussion of negotiation, see Gerald I.Nierenberg,
The Art of Negotiating
(Cornerstone, 1968).15. See John P. Kotter, “Power, Dependence, and EffectiveManagement,” HBR July–August 1977.16. Ibid.17. See Larry E. Greiner, “Patterns of Organization Change,”HBR May–June 1967; and Larry E. Greiner and Louis B. Bar-nes, “Organization Change and Development,” in
Organiza-tional Change and Development
, eds. Gene W. Dalton andPaul R. Lawrence (Irwin, 1970).18. For a good discussion of an approach that attempts tominimize resistance, see Renato Tagiuri, “Notes on theManagement of Change: Implication of Postulating a Needfor Competence,” in Organization, eds. John P. Kotter, VijaySathe, and Leonard A. Schlesinger (Irwin, 1979).19. Jay W. Lorsch, “Managing Change,” in Organizational Be-havior and Administration, eds. Paul R. Lawrence, Louis B.Barnes, and Jay W. Lorsch (Irwin, 1976).20. Ibid.21. Ibid.22. Michael Beer, Organization Change and Development: ASystems View (Goodyear, 1980).
Reprint R0807MTo order, see the next pageor call 800-988-0886 or 617-783-7500or go to www.hbr.org
B E S T O F H B R
Choosing Strategies for Change
To Order
For Harvard Business Review reprints and subscriptions, call 800-988-0886 or 617-783-7500. Go to www.hbr.org
For customized and quantity orders of Harvard Business Review article reprints, call 617-783-7626, or [email protected]
page 11
Further ReadingA R T I C L E SLeading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Failby John P. KotterHarvard Business ReviewJanuary 2007Product no. R0701J
Dealing with resistance is crucial to successful change management, but there other things leaders must do in addition. Kotter lays out eight stages you need to manage in order to give your transformation effort the best chance of succeeding: 1) Establish a sense of urgency, 2) Form a powerful guiding coalition to lead the effort, 3) Create a vision to direct the change initiative, 4) Communicate the vi-sion, using every vehicle possible, 5) Empower others to act on the vision; for example, by encouraging risk taking, 6) Create short-term wins (visible performance improvements) to whip up enthusiasm, 7) Consolidate perfor-mance improvements and produce more change, and 8) Institutionalize new ap-proaches developed during the initiative.
Cracking the Code of Changeby Michael Beer and Nitin NohriaHarvard Business ReviewApril 2001Product no. 651X
To lead change successfully, managers must balance two seemingly incompatible ap-proaches. “Theory E” change emphasizes economic value, as measured only by shareholder value. “Theory O” change stresses developing organizational culture and human capability. You can balance these two ap-proaches along several dimensions, including goals, focus, and reward systems. For example, the CEO of U.K. grocery chain ASDA boosted economic value through painful structural changes, such as removing top layers of hier-archy and freezing wages. He also fostered transparency and egalitarianism throughout the organization, making ASDA “a great place for everyone to work.” A culture of trust and
openness developed, and shareholder value increased eightfold.
The Hard Side of Change Managementby Harold L. Sirkin, Perry Keenan, and Alan JacksonHarvard Business ReviewOctober 2005Product no. R0510G
Leading change isn’t just about dealing with “soft” issues such as resistance. You also need to deal with “hard” elements. The authors identify four: 1) Duration: Review complex change projects every 2 weeks; more straight-forward initiatives, every 6–8 weeks. 2) Integ-rity: Assemble a change team comprising people who have problem-solving skills, are results oriented, can tolerate ambiguity, pos-sess organizational savvy, and disdain the limelight. 3) Commitment: Visibly endorse the change effort—no amount of public support is too much. 4) Effort: Ensure that no one’s workload increases more than 10% in imple-menting the change. If necessary, remove nonessential regular work from employees with key roles in the transformation project.