magnitude, activity, or direction

Change can involve magnitude, activity, or direction, and the first step toward a clearer vision for change is to clarify what form of change should be considered:

• Magnitude: “We need to enhance our execution of the current path.”
• Activity: “We need to adopt new ways of pursuing the current path.”
• Direction: “We need to take a different path.”

Companies that have doubled down on flawed or outdated business strategies, for example, Kodak, Nokia, Xerox, BlackBerry, Blockbuster, Tower Records, and J.C. Penney are guilty of believing that a change of magnitude was sufficient instead of either a change of activity, such as adopting new technologies or distribution channels, or a change of direction, such as exiting certain businesses altogether.

Contrast these examples with companies whose ambitions led to risky changes in direction when their context called instead for changes of activity or magnitude: GE’s attempts to be a first mover in green energy and the industrial internet of things through Ecomagination and Predix; Sony’s move into entertainment content; or Deutsche Bank’s efforts to become a global investment bank.

Many of the most impressive and successful corporate pivots of the past decade have taken the form of changes of activity — continuing with the same strategic path but fundamentally changing the activities used to pursue it. Think Netflix transitioning from a DVD-by-mail business to a streaming service; Adobe and Microsoft moving from software sales models to monthly subscription businesses; Walmart evolving from physical retail to omnichannel retail; and Amazon expanding into physical retailing with its Whole Foods acquisition and launch of Amazon Go.

"Changing How We Think About Change" by B. Tom Hunsaker, Richard Ettenson, and Jonathan Knowles. MITSloan Management Review. August 13, 2020.

dislike irrelevance

If you dislike change, you’re going to dislike irrelevance even more.

Eric Shinseki

"Changing How We Think About Change" by B. Tom Hunsaker, Richard Ettenson, and Jonathan Knowles. MITSloan Management Review. August 13, 2020.

failed changes

Each of us can list a number of poorly implemented changes in our organizations. Some changes end up behind schedule. Others run over budget. Some face tremendous resistance when employees experience barriers to adoption. Some changes get implemented, but the expected results never materialize. In some cases, changes fail completely and are abandoned. Many of the reasons past projects didn't achieve intended outcomes are tied to mismanaging the people side of change.

Now consider the cost of these failed changes. How much time and money was spent on initiatives that were not fully implemented? What was the impact to the organization from not implementing these changes? Your organization cannot risk the additional cost and missed benefits of poorly managing the human side of change. 

Building the organization-wide competency to manage change effectively can be a cost-avoidance measure that minimizes impacts from failed changes.

Tim Creasey

"Why Organizations Need To Make Change Management a Core Competency," Prosci. Accessed on April 20, 2023

get humans to willingly choose another behavior

Contrary to what many consulting firms would like for you to believe (and pay for), change practitioners don’t need any special certification to be successful. At its best, change management is interdisciplinary, so a wide array of skill sets and expertise can be leveraged and successfully applied to change efforts.

The function of a change effort is to get humans to willingly choose another behavior within some institutional context. That’s it.

"Rethinking Change Management as Design," by Brittany Stone. Method. Accessed on April 13, 2023.

self-serving bias

At one company we know, for example, leaders were asked to estimate how much time they spent tiptoeing around other people’s egos: making others feel that “my idea is yours,” for instance, or taking care not to tread on someone else’s turf. Most said 20 to 30 percent. Then they were asked how much time they spent tiptoeing around their own egos. Most were silent. Psychology explains this dynamic as a very predictable, and very human, “self-serving bias.” It involves viewing our own actions favorably and interpreting events in a way beneficial to ourselves. This explains why 25 percent of students rate themselves in the top 1 percent in their ability to get along with others. It’s why, when couples are asked to estimate their contribution to household work, the combined total routinely exceeds 100 percent.

"Getting personal about change," by Scott Keller and Bill Schaninger. McKinsey Quarterly. August 21, 2019.