L’ensemble des contenus Business Digest est exclusivement réservé à nos abonnés.
Nous vous remercions de ne pas les partager.
![What if change were viral?](https://business-digest.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BDQU32.jpg)
How can you put an end to tiresome organizational change efforts that go nowhere? According to Leandro Herrero, the answer is to use personal networks / informal communities within the company to spread change like a virus, creating new behaviors that fundamentally change the company culture.
Viral change is the new alternative to former mechanistic approaches whereby change was decreed from on high and deployed downward, cascaded throughout the company. In contrast, the strategy with viral change is to concentrate on a small number of “champions” who are influential within their various communities, have them adopt the new attitude, set a good example, and network. In this way, change is spread throughout the company at the speed of an airborne infection.
Based on « Viral Change » by Leandro Herrero, MeetingMinds 2008.
Personnel changes hinder my ability to initiate change.
On average 75% of transformation projects fail.
The intentions are good, the communication plan is painstakingly defined, the selected consultants are excellent, the objective is clear, and the roles are clearly assigned: so why then does the implementation end in an exploded budget and endless delays? And worse yet, why do the recipients thoroughly reject the project?
According to Léandro Herrero, author of Viral Change (MeetingMinds 2007), the reasons for such fiascos have nothing to do with the description of the priorities, the planning, or even the implementation of new procedures but rather stems from three common misconceptions:
-1) the belief that change is defined by new processes;
-2) the belief that the new process will lead to new behaviors;
-and 3) the belief that the proliferation of organizational initiatives will drive change – even if they momentarily lose alignment with strategy.
The intentions are good, the communication plan is painstakingly defined, the selected consultants are excellent, the objective is clear, and the roles are clearly assigned: so why then does the implementation end in an exploded budget and endless delays? And worse yet, why do the recipients thoroughly reject the project?
According to Léandro Herrero, author of Viral Change (MeetingMinds 2007), the reasons for such fiascos have nothing to do with the description of the priorities, the planning, or even the implementation of new procedures but rather stems from three common misconceptions:
-1) the belief that change is defined by new processes;
-2) the belief that the new process will lead to new behaviors;
-and 3) the belief that the proliferation of organizational initiatives will drive change – even if they momentarily lose alignment with strategy.
Unsuitable processes inhibit change.
We wrongly think that new behaviors are acquired via new procedures and systems. On the contrary, it’s the other way around: new behaviors sustain the new processes and systems.
The organizational environment is encumbered with new initiatives, sprouting out like the branches of a tree in dozens of missions. The “realignment” of the corporate strategy resembles an empty shell, and skepticism reigns.
A mechanistic view of an organization inhibits change.
The mechanistic view of the organization is comfortable: the organizational scaffolding is impeccably designed for structures, systems, reporting lines, organizational charts and departments and thus has the advantage of being visible. It can be measured and is therefore manageable.
The traditional approach to change commits the same “sin” of rationality, linearity, and mixed character, testifying to only a set number of accepted and largely shared ideas on change management. But, in reality, a company resembles a monumental network of disordered relations and passing information more than a smoothly running machine!
The mechanistic view of the organization is comfortable: the organizational scaffolding is impeccably designed for structures, systems, reporting lines, organizational charts and departments and thus has the advantage of being visible. It can be measured and is therefore manageable.
The traditional approach to change commits the same “sin” of rationality, linearity, and mixed character, testifying to only a set number of accepted and largely shared ideas on change management. But, in reality, a company resembles a monumental network of disordered relations and passing information more than a smoothly running machine!
An organization’s Informal networks can inhibit change.
These networks and communities can be either official (teams, task forces, and committees) or non-structured and self-generated via informal interactions. It is this second category of networks that create 75% of the valuable human interactions in the company: informal problem solving, knowledge transfer, brainstorming, innovation, and information and communication flow. Contrary to the traditional approach, which concentrates on the obvious 25% of interactions, “viral change” bases itself on the forces at work in this more subtle area that, though hidden, is an integral part of any organization.
These networks and communities can be either official (teams, task forces, and committees) or non-structured and self-generated via informal interactions. It is this second category of networks that create 75% of the valuable human interactions in the company: informal problem solving, knowledge transfer, brainstorming, innovation, and information and communication flow. Contrary to the traditional approach, which concentrates on the obvious 25% of interactions, “viral change” bases itself on the forces at work in this more subtle area that, though hidden, is an integral part of any organization.
Understanding how networks work allows me to understand how real change works
Change spreads through communities
Change can go viral thanks to the power of informal communities.
Champions discreetly work for change through their informal contacts. But invisibility does not mean opacity. The objectives can be clearly identified by the directors at the start of the project. However, the less we talk about it, the more we act on it! Informality does not necessarily imply chaos either. A certain degree of planning and coordination is required to identify the champions, solicit their support, and bring them together to present them with the new behaviors and their mission. The community should meet periodically in order to swap stories and assess progress.
Champions discreetly work for change through their informal contacts. But invisibility does not mean opacity. The objectives can be clearly identified by the directors at the start of the project. However, the less we talk about it, the more we act on it! Informality does not necessarily imply chaos either. A certain degree of planning and coordination is required to identify the champions, solicit their support, and bring them together to present them with the new behaviors and their mission. The community should meet periodically in order to swap stories and assess progress.