Change Evolution

Background

A few days ago, a colleague and I had occasion to share some thoughts on change in the business context. We both have an issue with the phrase “change management”, as we are not sure that change can really be “managed” in the classical sense of the word. Similarly, the term “business transformation” brings about its own challenges in meaning and intent, particularly in our local context. We finally concluded that evolution (not in the purely biological sense) might be a more appropriate phrase.

Change Evolution

Levels of Systems Change

As suggested by Putnam & Nicotera (2009), systems change can be conceptualised at three distinct but interdependent levels. These are:

·      BEING, or how the systems exists now;

·      BECOMING, or how the system is in a state of perpetual change; and

·      BEHAVING, or how the system is grounded in behavior.

How systems behave, is therefore a function of its past (what brought us into BEING) as well as what we are BECOMING.

Individuals

As human beings, where we are in the here and now, is also a function of our life-journey to date. To a greater or lesser extent, every experience we had makes us who and what we are today. We cannot “undo” or erase these events and their impact. Even the things we may have done, that on reflection we are perhaps not proud of, have helped to shape us. Hopefully, we can continue to “do better” as we learn and therefore continue to “know better”. We are, even unconsciously, evolving beings.

Organisations

Organisations, whether by design or not, also continuously evolve. They employ new people, acquire new customers, expand into new markets, adjust to changing governance frameworks – some of these without necessarily being conscious of the changes taking place.

Organisational change programs however often take on a persona where the message is one of “everything we did previously was wrong / inadequate”. Even if this were factually correct (and I have yet so see it being true), the danger of the message is that people may feel that they are personally to “blame” and call upon a variety of defence mechanisms to protect self-image and their sense of worth.

At the same time, we also acknowledge the value of “institutional memory”, and the need to in organisations simultaneously have stability and change. There are things in our corporate history that made us who we are, and that will remain valuable also going into the future.

Societies

Societies also evolve continuously. Through exposure to other countries and cultures, whether through media or personal contact, we are constantly broadening our horizons. We see new possibilities for ourselves, our families and our communities. Through the sometimes very complicated interplay between wise elders, good citizens and young turks, we are occasionally dragged into a “new world” albeit kicking and screaming!

Final Remarks

The need for occasional “drastic change” is not denied. More often than not, the distinct sense is that organisations almost deliberately “manufacture” the crises that then requires equally dramatic “change management”. At an individual level, we are faced with all sorts of unexpected challenges (health issues, accidents, death in families and so forth) that also require rapid adjustment.

At a pragmatic level, the issue with change is that it is rarely if ever a clean break from the past. Trying to position it as such is simultaneously not true, and simply threatening to most people. 

Perhaps change initiatives should in all cases start with a deep appreciation of individual and collective history, and a celebration of the journeys that brought us to where we are now. In this message of “you are OK”, we can create the will and energy to co-evolve into a shared future, even if it is a little scary right now.