L’ensemble des contenus Business Digest est exclusivement réservé à nos abonnés.
Nous vous remercions de ne pas les partager.
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.
True
False
Right !
Yes! Paradoxically, frequent staff changes can hinder transformation efforts, which are based on trust. This has to do primarily with the trust others have in you, but it also refers to the trust you have in others. It takes a while to build trust and to reconcile people’s competing interests. But, a word of warning: trust never exists at a general, company-wide level. Trust is built between individuals through formal or informal networks, which are where your efforts need to be focused.
Wrong !
Yes! Paradoxically, frequent staff changes can hinder transformation efforts, which are based on trust. This has to do primarily with the trust others have in you, but it also refers to the trust you have in others. It takes a while to build trust and to reconcile people’s competing interests. But, a word of warning: trust never exists at a general, company-wide level. Trust is built between individuals through formal or informal networks, which are where your efforts need to be focused.
On average 75% of transformation projects fail.
True
False
Right !
True. According to a 2013 survey among 276 global companies by Towers Watson, 75 % of transformation efforts end in failure.
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.
Wrong !
True. According to a 2013 survey among 276 global companies by Towers Watson, 75 % of transformation efforts end in failure.
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.
True
False
Right !
According to Herrero, only 15% of failures can be blamed on technological factors or procedures (however, these encompass, generally, 85% of assigned budgets). Therefore the remaining 85% of failures relate to vision and individuals. This is the “soft stuff” that the authors says is overlooked because it is scary for managers who do not know how “to navigate the muddy waters of social and psychological factors.”
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.
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.
Wrong !
A mechanistic view of an organization inhibits change.
True
False
Right !
According to Herrero, all these problems come from “a mechanistic view of the organization and its management of change that is conventional, traditional, old and totally unsuitable to today’s environment.”
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!
Wrong !
According to Herrero, all these problems come from “a mechanistic view of the organization and its management of change that is conventional, traditional, old and totally unsuitable to today’s environment.”
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.
True
False
Right !
Wrong, although they can sometimes be a source of blockage, they are the living lever of any transformation. What is the essence of a company? The sum of its communities -- social groups with multiple interests that have the capacity to spread or block change much more effectively than isolated individuals.
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.
Wrong !
Wrong, although they can sometimes be a source of blockage, they are the living lever of any transformation. What is the essence of a company? The sum of its communities -- social groups with multiple interests that have the capacity to spread or block change much more effectively than isolated individuals.
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
True
False
Right !
True. According to Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow, authors of Immunity to Change (Harvard Business Press 2009), only one person in seven with heart problems actually changed his or her lifestyle in response to alarming diagnoses. However, this figure rose to two out of three when the individual belonged to a community, and the decisions to change were made collectively. The community approach, which is by nature collaborative, is particularly effective in anchoring new behaviors because communities are bound together by high levels of trust: all it needs is for one person to be won over to the change for the transformation to spread virally within the network.
Wrong !
True. According to Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow, authors of Immunity to Change (Harvard Business Press 2009), only one person in seven with heart problems actually changed his or her lifestyle in response to alarming diagnoses. However, this figure rose to two out of three when the individual belonged to a community, and the decisions to change were made collectively. The community approach, which is by nature collaborative, is particularly effective in anchoring new behaviors because communities are bound together by high levels of trust: all it needs is for one person to be won over to the change for the transformation to spread virally within the network.
Change spreads through communities
True
False
Right !
True. According to Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow, authors of Immunity to Change (Harvard Business Press 2009), only one person in seven with heart problems actually changed his or her lifestyle in response to alarming diagnoses. However, this figure rose to two out of three when the individual belonged to a community, and the decisions to change were made collectively. The community approach, which is by nature collaborative, is particularly effective in anchoring new behaviors because communities are bound together by high levels of trust: all it needs is for one person to be won over to the change for the transformation to spread virally within the network.
Wrong !
True. According to Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow, authors of Immunity to Change (Harvard Business Press 2009), only one person in seven with heart problems actually changed his or her lifestyle in response to alarming diagnoses. However, this figure rose to two out of three when the individual belonged to a community, and the decisions to change were made collectively. The community approach, which is by nature collaborative, is particularly effective in anchoring new behaviors because communities are bound together by high levels of trust: all it needs is for one person to be won over to the change for the transformation to spread virally within the network.
Change can go viral thanks to the power of informal communities.
True
False
Right !
Not really, top-down leadership has a key responsibility! Leadership’s role is to facilitate the invisible work that is taking place through informal communities! In viral mode, the change needs the support of “champions,” influential people capable of spreading the new behaviors. The organization enriches itself with each champion, a new leader. Infection is informal and hidden: no workshops where the managers brief the champions; no ground-breaking declarations presenting a new program or corporate initiative. “The more the viral change is visible and formalized, the less chance it has of succeeding,” argues Herrero.
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.
Wrong !
Not really, top-down leadership has a key responsibility! Leadership’s role is to facilitate the invisible work that is taking place through informal communities! In viral mode, the change needs the support of “champions,” influential people capable of spreading the new behaviors. The organization enriches itself with each champion, a new leader. Infection is informal and hidden: no workshops where the managers brief the champions; no ground-breaking declarations presenting a new program or corporate initiative. “The more the viral change is visible and formalized, the less chance it has of succeeding,” argues Herrero.
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.
Your results
/ 8
SIGN IN
