Embracing change is not easy. But despite the complexities involved, Hugh Mitchell, Chief Human Resources and Corporate Officer, Royal Dutch Shell plc, argues there’s no need for leaders – whether a head teacher or a CEO – to reach for management books. Excerpts from his speech on the subject given recently at the School Leaders Scotland Conference:

I’d like to kick-off by describing two different frames of reference for the process of change, which have emerged over time. Better researched people than me have characterised these as a ‘Diagnostic’ form of change, versus a ‘Dialogic’ form. I like to think of them more simply as ‘Programmatic’ change versus ‘Emergent’ change.

Programmatic change is the more prevalent in organisations and institutions. It builds on the change theories which emerged in the 1940s and evolved over many decades. In essence, it involves analysing the status quo in an organisation and pin pointing specific changes that need to be made. The status quo is then unfrozen temporarily, some changes are made, then it’s re-frozen. It often characterises change as a “journey” from A to B. This model relies a lot on data to identify specific areas which could be improved. And it assumes that you have time to unfreeze, change and refreeze before the next big change comes along. It also tends to attract its own special language, diagnostics and depend on experts to manage the change process for you.

Another type of change, though, is ‘emergent’ change. This is less about setting up separate project teams to diagnose specific problems and design change projects, and more about a long-term, constantly evolving process. This model is about almost imperceptibly advancing productivity and effectiveness through constant efforts to spot performance gaps and immediately address them. Emergent change tends to focus on enquiry, group reflection, and evolving the narrative within the organisation, more than analysing data. It takes longer, and in my experience is more long-lasting and deep-rooted than most change projects. It also more powerfully uses alignment to a purpose or vision to provide the organising discipline for change, rather than the more analytical model more typical of programmatic change.

In preparation for today, I reflected on both theories in relation to the theme of this conference – leading change. And I kept coming back to two questions: do these theories actually help an individual or an organisation lead and control change? Or do they simply help leverage and exploit a change that’s happening anyway to achieve a specific outcome?

For answers, I’d like to tell a short story about Napoleon. Given that this year marks 200 years since the Battle of Waterloo, this seems apt. One day, he was speaking to a colonel of a Hungarian battalion. The colonel said he’d served in the army of Maria Theresa, who was Holy Roman Empress of the Habsburg Dynasty from 1740 to 1780. This prompted Napoleon to chime in: “You must have a few years under
your belt.”

When the colonel said he’d lived “sixty or seventy years” Napoleon exclaimed: “You mean to say you have not kept track of the years you have lived”.

The colonel responded: “Sir, I always count my money, my shirts, and my horses – but as for my years, I know nobody who wants to steal them, and I shall surely never lose them.”

I mention this story to illustrate the inevitable passing of time. Which is worth reflecting on when looking for an answer to the questions I posed. Because change, like time, is inevitable. It’s constant. And it can’t be led or controlled. In simple terms, if change cannot be led, is it more about leveraging broader change in pursuit of an enduring purpose? Everyone, from teachers to business people, can clearly control how they react to macro changes – be they societal, political, or economic. But they can’t control those changes themselves.

While it’s impossible to lead and control big picture changes, like the rise of technology, such changes can be embraced and harnessed for a specific purpose.

Technology is a good example of a macro change. Let’s wind back the clock. In 1989, Tim Berners-Lee wrote a document called “Information Management: A Proposal.” The response to it from his supervisor at CERN was “vague, but exciting” and Berners-Lee was given the nod to develop the idea. The World Wide Web was created a year later. Since then the pace of change has been staggering. This is well illustrated by images of people waiting for the announcement of a new Pope at St Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican. In 2005, everyone’s eyes are fixed on the balcony. But in 2013, most people are photographing or filming the announcement on phones or tablets. No wonder teenagers are now being referred to as ‘screenagers’.

Pages: 1 2 3 4