00:00:01
[Music]
00:00:08
[Music]
00:00:20
Uh we're here today with Greg Sheay and
00:00:23
Cassie Solomon to discuss their new book
00:00:27
uh leading successful change. Greg,
00:00:29
Cassie, thanks for being with us today.
00:00:31
My pleasure. Thanks, Jeeoff. So, you
00:00:33
start off the book and you begin with a
00:00:34
bit of a paradox. You say we live in a
00:00:37
world of permanent change. our main jobs
00:00:39
are change yet most organizational
00:00:42
efforts to succeed with change fail. Uh
00:00:47
can you talk about that a little bit? So
00:00:49
I think part of the challenge of being
00:00:51
where we are uh just in the history of
00:00:54
the planet let alone the history of of
00:00:56
of business or modern organizations is
00:00:59
that we're in a place that much of the
00:01:01
change that is occurring is simply
00:01:03
picking up speed for any number of
00:01:05
reasons from advances in technology the
00:01:07
autoc catalytic nature of that of that
00:01:09
change changes in the financial market
00:01:12
uh changes in globalization that it just
00:01:15
has become a more and more turbulent uh
00:01:17
turbulent environment. that we're in. So
00:01:19
that precipitates more and more change,
00:01:21
which exposes us to what we don't do
00:01:24
particularly well, which is to do that
00:01:26
not just uh in a one-off fashion, but to
00:01:29
do that repeatedly. So uh the pressure
00:01:32
to get good at it shows us what we don't
00:01:34
do particularly well, which is we're not
00:01:36
as good as we need to be at it. uh and I
00:01:39
think that uh that that pressure is
00:01:41
actually a skill that people in
00:01:44
organizations including leaders but not
00:01:46
limited to leaders have to pay conscious
00:01:48
attention to. This is a key skill. In
00:01:50
fact, one can argue uh that it's the key
00:01:53
skill for people is uh we assume that
00:01:55
you can do the parts of your job that
00:01:57
used to constitute your job namely
00:02:00
keeping the place running. Uh but today
00:02:03
people assume that and the rest of it is
00:02:05
what are you doing about and whether
00:02:07
it's installation of a of a of a new
00:02:09
information system have you made have
00:02:11
you dealt with changing markets have you
00:02:14
been able to open or close parts of of
00:02:16
of your organization new parts of the
00:02:19
organization reach to new parts of new
00:02:21
markets? Have you been able to adjust to
00:02:23
changes in the workforce? All of those
00:02:25
things end up being how we often think
00:02:27
about a person's job. We assume the
00:02:29
other stuff. So all the the change piece
00:02:32
has become more prominent. One can argue
00:02:34
it's your real job. Uh but we're not uh
00:02:37
what we're exposing is that we're not
00:02:38
particularly good at it particularly
00:02:40
when we're talking about being able to
00:02:41
do it agile. Uh do it in a way that's
00:02:44
sustainable. Uh do it over time, do it
00:02:46
repeatedly. So I think it's an outside
00:02:48
pressure is is uh providing the occasion
00:02:52
for us to see our limits in terms of of
00:02:54
doing this doing J. Interesting.
00:02:56
Interesting. And in the book you talk
00:02:58
about the lead dog myth uh and the role
00:03:02
of a a leader or or maybe the myth of a
00:03:04
leader within change efforts. Um what is
00:03:07
the lead dog myth and and how can
00:03:08
leaders uh avoid falling into that kind
00:03:11
of trap? Well, let me take a shot at
00:03:13
this and then I'm sure Cassie you have
00:03:14
something to something to add. uh
00:03:16
there's there's a way in which uh we
00:03:19
tend to over overcribe in general uh
00:03:22
what may be a indication of a system to
00:03:26
the characteristics of an individual. So
00:03:28
this is a particular example of
00:03:30
something that's I think is a broader
00:03:31
phenomena. So we look at well if it
00:03:35
didn't work it must be either because
00:03:36
you as the follower weren't motivated or
00:03:39
it must be because you as a leader were
00:03:41
not inspirational.
00:03:42
uh what we know is that yes that can be
00:03:45
part of it and there's a wide literature
00:03:47
about how to how to go about leading
00:03:50
change in the sense of inspiration,
00:03:52
communication, etc. And I'm not trying
00:03:54
to say that's not important. However, in
00:03:56
the end, human beings are much better at
00:03:58
adapting to a changed environment than
00:04:01
they are to try and be pushed into into
00:04:03
change. And we underattend to that. So
00:04:05
when we say it's all about the lead dog,
00:04:07
that myth is that well if you don't see
00:04:09
good change either you've got a problem
00:04:11
with the lead or you got a problem with
00:04:12
the follower suggests that really in the
00:04:14
spirit of uh and then in the tradition
00:04:16
of systems thinking which key parts of
00:04:18
it came out of Wharton, Eric Trist, Fred
00:04:21
Emory uh that that if you think about it
00:04:24
from a system standpoint, the place to
00:04:25
start is not at the at the at the leader
00:04:29
or follower. It's to say, what's the
00:04:31
environment that you want to set around
00:04:33
people that would make a certain set of
00:04:35
behaviors make sense to them? Because
00:04:36
human beings do well much better at
00:04:39
adapting to environments than they do
00:04:40
being told to change in a way that may
00:04:42
or may not make sense with what the
00:04:44
world around them, their workspace,
00:04:46
their strategic business unit, their
00:04:49
service line indicates that they should
00:04:51
act. So, you tell them one thing, uh the
00:04:54
world around them tells them another
00:04:55
thing. People are pretty intelligent.
00:04:57
They'll go, "Well, you'll come and go,
00:04:59
but the world that's immediately around
00:05:01
me, my reward system, measurement
00:05:03
system, uh, they're telling me to do
00:05:05
something else." Uh, so they'll do the
00:05:07
something they'll they'll do the
00:05:08
something else. And so I think we we
00:05:10
underattend to that. And that's part of
00:05:12
the reason, back to your first question,
00:05:13
that our record for change is not so
00:05:15
good. So we we put too much on the
00:05:17
individual. Whereas I' I'd suggest and
00:05:19
Cassie uh and I in our book suggest that
00:05:22
it's far more useful to think about the
00:05:24
work of leadership as a critical part of
00:05:26
that is including how you're going to
00:05:28
design the work systems or the
00:05:30
environment around people to make the
00:05:32
kinds of behavior that you want to see
00:05:35
make sense to them. That's a key part of
00:05:37
leadership. If you don't do that, what
00:05:39
you do as a leader is you're pushing
00:05:42
against what might make sense to people
00:05:44
dayto day. And that's not only not going
00:05:46
to work very well, hence the numbers
00:05:47
that you quoted at the beginning, but
00:05:49
it's also going to create a strain and
00:05:51
even break your relationship with your
00:05:53
followers.
00:05:54
So, I just want to I want to sort of add
00:05:56
to that from a different perspective. I
00:05:59
think this is a very accessible uh set
00:06:01
of ideas. So, think about I'm going to
00:06:03
change my behavior. I'm going to go off
00:06:05
to a productivity training or a time
00:06:07
management seminar. And you can feel
00:06:10
very inspired and and motivated and you
00:06:13
know make all kinds of resolutions. This
00:06:15
is right in line with the New Year's
00:06:16
resolutions research and coming out of
00:06:20
the box you feel like I have changed
00:06:22
something inside of me because I've
00:06:23
learned and I'm motivated and we know
00:06:26
because of research that it doesn't it
00:06:28
doesn't last. And the most dramatic
00:06:30
example of this I think and it's in the
00:06:32
book is people who are recovering from
00:06:34
bypass surgery. Now you think someone
00:06:36
has just sawed your chest open, right?
00:06:38
And you're motivated to change your
00:06:40
lifestyle. But the statistics are
00:06:42
extraordinary. It's like 94% of people
00:06:45
don't make those changes. So it we
00:06:48
believe it's really not about getting
00:06:50
better at motivating. It's not the
00:06:52
charismatic leader who can convey a
00:06:55
sense of urgency. You don't explain the
00:06:58
threat to your workforce. This is where
00:07:00
burning platform stuff can come in
00:07:02
because you can you can have those
00:07:04
dramatic experiences and still step
00:07:07
back. You know, there's been a kickoff.
00:07:09
You've launched an initiative. You've
00:07:11
poured yourself into explaining
00:07:13
charismatically why everything needs to
00:07:15
be different and it's, you know, the
00:07:18
middle of February and you've forgotten
00:07:19
it was the New Year's resolution that
00:07:21
was just left by the wayside. So,
00:07:24
becoming more of a designer of the
00:07:27
environment. So using the same examples,
00:07:30
how do I design the environment around
00:07:32
myself to change my behaviors for time
00:07:35
management? How do I design the bypass
00:07:38
patients environment so that it's easy
00:07:40
for them to make the lifestyle changes?
00:07:43
That that's a different approach. It's a
00:07:45
very different way of looking at change.
00:07:47
And people get really excited when they
00:07:49
when they learn it. They're like, "Yeah,
00:07:51
I get it." Because we've all experienced
00:07:53
this even in our own in our own lives.
00:07:56
Sure. and it can connect back to our
00:07:57
personal our personal
00:07:59
experiences. A as I think about the work
00:08:02
systems model that you've laid out then
00:08:04
is part of the implication that bold
00:08:06
change um might have better success
00:08:10
if you had a choice between setting up
00:08:13
more dramatic change and doing it in a
00:08:15
way that you can line up enough of the
00:08:17
environment around people that it makes
00:08:18
sense to take the the bold move. that's
00:08:21
more likely to be successful, we'd
00:08:23
argue, than a change that was a much
00:08:26
more limited change, but you only change
00:08:28
one aspect of of the environment. Uh,
00:08:31
and so people say, well, it that seems
00:08:34
irrelevant to me actually. Why would I
00:08:36
pay attention to that piece that you
00:08:38
want to do? So, uh it's it certainly is
00:08:41
conceivable uh that bold change could be
00:08:43
easier if you can do the work that you
00:08:46
need to work to do to get the the
00:08:48
environment around it around the
00:08:49
individuals to change enough so it makes
00:08:51
sense for them to engage in what you're
00:08:53
looking for them to to do. And can I
00:08:56
just add because this is a point you
00:08:57
made earlier with me which I love which
00:08:59
is it's got to be bold and aligned. So I
00:09:03
think we we often find ourselves called
00:09:06
in. I'm thinking of these as like change
00:09:08
management turnaround situations. And
00:09:10
you've got this silo saying, "Oh, we're
00:09:13
going to have this bold change and this
00:09:14
new technology. This is a bold change."
00:09:17
If these things are, it's cancelelling
00:09:19
each other out like a signal and noise
00:09:22
problem. Just being bold is not the
00:09:25
answer. It's thinking about a coherent
00:09:27
and aligned system that drives change.
00:09:31
We actually fall into a trap. I think u
00:09:34
uh regularly in that in order to try to
00:09:37
make the change quote more manageable we
00:09:39
do make it smaller when in fact we miss
00:09:41
the point about what the actual change
00:09:42
is. So uh a typical or a common example
00:09:46
I should say of that is there's some new
00:09:48
software perhaps business enterprise
00:09:50
software that people want to install and
00:09:53
the change gets defined as simply about
00:09:55
the software. Well, that's seems like
00:09:58
it's big enough, but actually that's not
00:10:00
big enough because the change really is
00:10:02
you want a set of people making a
00:10:05
different set of decisions using a
00:10:06
different kind of information with a
00:10:08
different set of objectives with a
00:10:10
different kind of collaboration using
00:10:12
different skills that happen to be
00:10:15
connected with the installation of this
00:10:17
new information system. And that's
00:10:19
actually feels like a bigger change. But
00:10:21
for for the tens or hundreds of millions
00:10:23
of dollars you're putting into the the
00:10:25
software, you actually should be
00:10:27
thinking about the change bigger.
00:10:29
Because if you think about smaller, what
00:10:30
you're going to get is 10% of the
00:10:32
functionality is going to get used about
00:10:34
the software system. People aren't going
00:10:36
to see why they should change their
00:10:37
behavior. They're simply going to be
00:10:39
compliant to the where what to really
00:10:40
we're trying to do is change patterns of
00:10:42
behavior inside the organization. So
00:10:44
bigger in that case could very likely be
00:10:46
more likely to be successful than
00:10:48
smaller in that case. Right. And the
00:10:51
work systems model that you present in
00:10:53
the book gives readers an opportunity uh
00:10:56
to look across those set of factors.
00:10:59
Right. Right. Right. And we use it we
00:11:02
use it to design with with groups and
00:11:04
sit down and say all right you know tell
00:11:06
us what it is you want to see and then
00:11:09
use this almost as a checklist. You know
00:11:11
design with all of these elements. so
00:11:14
that it's coherent. Um, and it's people
00:11:16
understand it once they've learned it
00:11:18
and they they sit back and come out with
00:11:20
pretty radical things actually. And and
00:11:23
so I think that the way one way to think
00:11:25
about the book is it's both a framework
00:11:27
which we've been talking about as well
00:11:29
as a technique which we try to be
00:11:31
specific enough in the book so that both
00:11:33
are accessible. So how you think about
00:11:35
it as well as how you would do it,
00:11:37
right? And and part of that technique
00:11:38
and maybe I can ask you to describe this
00:11:41
uh briefly now. part of that technique
00:11:43
is about really envisioning what the
00:11:45
future looks like and importantly the
00:11:47
set of behaviors that are occurring in
00:11:49
the future. Um, what advice would you
00:11:51
have uh for a reader who's trying to put
00:11:54
him or herself that that far into the
00:11:56
future? Well, again, let me take a cut
00:11:58
at this and I'm sure Cassie is going to
00:12:00
have something to to to add to the the
00:12:02
points. Uh, a couple pieces that that we
00:12:06
know of. There are various kinds of
00:12:08
techniques for trying to do envision
00:12:10
envisioning or visioning of the future.
00:12:13
Uh in common of those one aspect is you
00:12:16
want to get far enough out into the
00:12:18
future so you can free people up from
00:12:20
from the present. So if you want to get
00:12:22
change to happen by and large you don't
00:12:24
want to work from well how do we improve
00:12:25
the present because you've already got a
00:12:28
whole bunch of constraints built in
00:12:29
there and you're not going to get people
00:12:31
to be as creative as you can be if you
00:12:33
can get far enough out. So whether one
00:12:35
is talking about bad backcasting or
00:12:37
idealized design, you want to get far
00:12:39
enough out temporally that people get
00:12:42
freed up to then think about what might
00:12:44
we actually create. So that'd be one
00:12:46
piece of of counsel. The second piece
00:12:48
would be and this is what sets I think
00:12:49
this technique apart from others is to
00:12:52
to work hard to envision as if you were
00:12:54
a playwright. Uh uh what is the scene
00:12:58
that if I saw it, I'd know we've gotten
00:13:00
to the kind of place we want to get to.
00:13:02
uh and and that's actually I think in
00:13:05
the whole part of of what we talk about
00:13:07
in the book that's the hardest p piece
00:13:09
for people to stay with is to push to
00:13:12
the specificity of what you actually
00:13:15
want to see. How would you know it?
00:13:16
Who's in the room? How are they talking?
00:13:18
What tools are they using? What
00:13:19
measurement system are they responding
00:13:21
to? That that kind of specificity is not
00:13:24
there to then end up being deeply
00:13:26
prescriptive. So somehow you out you're
00:13:28
going to tell people this is the script
00:13:30
you got to follow. but rather it helps
00:13:32
to set up the second part of the model
00:13:34
which is to help be diagnostic in a in a
00:13:37
in an acute in a in a a precise way uh
00:13:41
diagnostic about well that's what we
00:13:43
want and that's clearly not what we're
00:13:44
seeing in terms of how the field and
00:13:47
headquarters or how R&D and sales
00:13:50
whoever it is that you might put in that
00:13:52
scene how they deal with each other if
00:13:54
that's not what we're seeing let's
00:13:56
assume that it's not because of those
00:13:58
people we can get back there if we have
00:14:00
to but Let's assume it's because of how
00:14:01
we designed the system. So what would we
00:14:03
have to do to make it make sense to
00:14:05
those people to behave in the way we
00:14:07
just described? We'd like to have but
00:14:09
it's not the way that it's happening. If
00:14:11
we've done the work around the scene and
00:14:13
done the work of trying to be precise
00:14:15
about that now we have what we need to
00:14:17
do um a pointed analysis of the systems
00:14:21
around people that we need to change. If
00:14:23
we don't do that work in the scene, then
00:14:25
we're left with platitudes or vague and
00:14:28
it makes it hard to do the more detailed
00:14:30
planning about what am I actually what
00:14:32
do I have to actually do to create the
00:14:34
environment that makes the behavior that
00:14:36
I want make sense to people. Got it. Got
00:14:38
it. Well, and I I'm so glad you went
00:14:40
there because I was sitting here and
00:14:41
thinking I want to give everybody like a
00:14:43
vague button that they can learn how to
00:14:46
hit when they hear it, you know? So,
00:14:48
what is it you're trying to actually do
00:14:50
here? Oh, I want people to
00:14:52
collaborate. What does that look like?
00:14:54
And you know, you get all these
00:14:56
agreements at this 50,000 foot level.
00:15:00
Conceptually, everyone is going to say,
00:15:01
"Oh, yes, we definitely we just had a
00:15:03
merger and acquisition. We definitely
00:15:05
want everybody on both sides to
00:15:07
collaborate." And we we nod our heads
00:15:09
and walk away. And then we say, "Gosh,
00:15:11
what happened?" You know, what does that
00:15:13
really mean to people? What does that
00:15:14
look like? What's the behavior we're
00:15:17
looking for? If you bring the
00:15:19
conversation down to that level, you
00:15:21
might discover you don't have quite as
00:15:23
good agreement and you have to keep
00:15:25
thinking and working.
00:15:27
And one of the ways that uh you
00:15:29
highlight this in the book is with the
00:15:31
examples uh that you've raised, right?
00:15:34
And and two of them really stood out to
00:15:35
me and Cassie, if I can, I'd like to ask
00:15:37
you about them. Um the first was
00:15:39
fostering innovation at Whirlpool and
00:15:42
the second was about how to sustain the
00:15:44
customer service success that Disney has
00:15:46
seen for so many years. What I was
00:15:49
really struck with was how these were
00:15:51
change efforts that were born out of
00:15:52
success as opposed to crisis or failure.
00:15:55
Um how should leaders of successful
00:15:57
organizations uh think about change?
00:16:00
What I what I love about the Whirlpool
00:16:02
case is the CEO had tried to change
00:16:06
Whirlpool's culture. it's really a
00:16:07
culture case. Um, two or three times and
00:16:10
it was really towards the end of his
00:16:12
tenure he said, "I'm going to take one
00:16:13
more run at this thing." You know, we've
00:16:15
been an engineering company. We're
00:16:16
geared that way. I need to be customer
00:16:18
focused and we need to be innovative.
00:16:22
And it took it took years partly because
00:16:24
I think they started more um modestly
00:16:28
and then just kept adding layer after
00:16:31
layer of system change um and building
00:16:34
all of the ingredients that actually
00:16:37
create culture such that three years
00:16:39
into it they had really seen tremendous
00:16:41
impacts to the bottom line. And what
00:16:44
what's great about that, if you're a
00:16:46
successful leader, you see the changes
00:16:47
coming, the kind that Greg was
00:16:49
describing, before the crisis hits,
00:16:52
before the burning platform arrives, you
00:16:56
want to begin to move. And the model
00:16:58
gives you a way of designing into that
00:17:00
future without having to wait for panic
00:17:02
to set in all the way down through the
00:17:04
ranks. That's too late to start a change
00:17:07
like this. It's going to, especially a
00:17:08
big culture change. Disney is kind of
00:17:11
the opposite partly because our friend
00:17:13
Walt had that vision from the beginning
00:17:15
and he he just was a holistic thinker.
00:17:18
He wanted environment to convey a
00:17:21
certain quality of guest experience.
00:17:23
They designed feedback mechanisms for
00:17:27
people to understand the guest
00:17:29
experience. If you read the history of
00:17:31
how they built the customer satisfaction
00:17:34
experience there and now they tell other
00:17:36
people how to do it. Um, it really
00:17:38
includes all of the ingredients that we
00:17:40
discuss in the book. And, uh, one of the
00:17:43
things that was really helpful to me as
00:17:45
I was reading it was all of a sudden I
00:17:47
was thinking about sustaining success as
00:17:49
a change process as well. Oh, can I can
00:17:51
I take that one? Because we push changes
00:17:54
into our organizations because I'm
00:17:57
thinking about handwashing in hospitals,
00:17:58
which is just a horrifically difficult
00:18:01
change to incorporate. And as long as
00:18:03
you're bearing down and sending the
00:18:05
message, you're getting the behavior you
00:18:07
want. But if you turn your attention
00:18:09
away, you know, 6 months later, it's
00:18:11
it's slid back to to the baseline. And
00:18:15
that really requires this kind of
00:18:17
re-engineering of the environment, I
00:18:19
think, to hardwire the change. One thing
00:18:22
I' I'd add to to what Cassiey's talking
00:18:24
about is one of the choices we make uh
00:18:27
is what are you going to use as the
00:18:29
emotional energy for change, right? So
00:18:32
we come out of a a period which I
00:18:34
actually think this part of the issue of
00:18:36
having done this for as long as I've
00:18:37
done it uh you you can you can remember
00:18:40
when it might have been different. So I
00:18:42
think one of the products of the 80s uh
00:18:45
is that we associate developing either
00:18:48
sense of urgency or what I would term
00:18:50
felt need as based on fear. People have
00:18:53
to I mean just the very image of a
00:18:54
burning platform right let's take a
00:18:56
human being put them on a platform and
00:18:58
light it on fire and that's how we're
00:18:59
going to get change to happen. Uh and
00:19:01
that language came out of the 80s which
00:19:03
was a particularly difficult painful
00:19:06
time uh radical restructuring lots of
00:19:09
layoffs all that was going on in the US
00:19:11
economy. That's one way to go about
00:19:14
fueling change. And and yet when you do
00:19:16
that we know that when people are very
00:19:18
anxious when they're scared you can get
00:19:20
them focused but at the same time that's
00:19:22
not the way that you get the most
00:19:24
innovative creative because anxiety up
00:19:26
intelligence down. Uh another way to do
00:19:29
it is what more to what we were doing
00:19:32
before that which is that we were
00:19:34
thinking more in terms of what are you
00:19:35
trying to create? What's the hope?
00:19:36
What's the dream? Uh put two men on the
00:19:39
moon or put a man on the moon and bring
00:19:40
him back. Say that type and and if
00:19:43
you're trying to change an organization
00:19:45
that's successful, it's hard to use the
00:19:47
lessons from burning platform uh because
00:19:51
where you going to create that and even
00:19:53
if you do, you're going to buy a set of
00:19:55
problems. That's fine if that you
00:19:56
actually have a burning platform. But
00:19:58
what's the other way to do it? And the
00:19:59
other way tends to be uh much more in
00:20:01
terms of what would you like, as good as
00:20:03
we are, what would we like to see? What
00:20:05
are the things that we're not seeing
00:20:07
here that we'd love to see if we could
00:20:08
see? Or we've come this far, what's the
00:20:11
next thing? And so you can use this
00:20:13
technique that we're talking about
00:20:15
either when you're working off of more
00:20:16
of a fearbased driven by the world
00:20:18
outside or maybe it's in the in the
00:20:20
framework of success. you're trying to
00:20:21
construct what's the next place where's
00:20:23
the hope or optimism that we can
00:20:25
generate given our success about what
00:20:27
might be even better that we could
00:20:29
create in the world uh what it would be
00:20:31
like to work with each other what the
00:20:32
type of connection or how do we get the
00:20:34
next 10% or how do we go from the
00:20:36
playoffs to the championship whatever
00:20:38
image one wants to use and so I think
00:20:40
when we think about this this process
00:20:42
and winning organizations that's
00:20:44
something that isn't isn't talked about
00:20:46
in part because we haven't gone back and
00:20:49
changed the constructs drugs that we
00:20:51
formed in a very very traumatic and
00:20:54
painful period of time and I don't think
00:20:56
we've quite adjusted or balanced or
00:20:58
calibrated right and hopefully the model
00:21:00
uh I think provides a way to do that. So
00:21:03
thank you. uh as we think about as we
00:21:07
think about organizational change
00:21:08
efforts and I speaking personally um as
00:21:11
an organizational leader uh I appreciate
00:21:14
what you've said about expanding our
00:21:16
view beyond leaders and followers uh to
00:21:19
really en encompass the whole
00:21:21
environment. Um I know the question that
00:21:23
I often face though is how much is
00:21:25
enough? How much of the environment um
00:21:28
needs to be shaped? How do I know uh
00:21:32
what or what are the cues to let me know
00:21:34
that we're making progress towards our
00:21:36
goal? So the uh the only slightly
00:21:40
flippant answer to that would be uh
00:21:43
you've changed enough when people
00:21:45
experience that they're in a different
00:21:46
place than they were before. So the the
00:21:48
kind of clinical judgment is do people
00:21:50
say whoa this is different? I'm in a I'm
00:21:53
in a different I'm in a different domain
00:21:55
than I was before. to get to that place
00:21:57
our council is that you at least start
00:22:00
by thinking of changing four of the
00:22:02
eight dimensions that we talk about
00:22:04
levers uh you change at least four of
00:22:07
those and uh then you're into a into a
00:22:10
judgment about is it well if I could
00:22:12
change six kind of is it as good as
00:22:15
three dramatically and and the point is
00:22:17
not that there's something magic about
00:22:19
the four but in the end we come back to
00:22:21
the my first point here which would be
00:22:23
people whose behavior you're trying to
00:22:25
change should experience that they're in
00:22:27
a different environment than they were
00:22:29
before. And our council would be that's
00:22:31
probably going to involve a heavy pull
00:22:33
on at least half of the dimensions of of
00:22:36
the of the work environment which would
00:22:38
be four of the eight. The more the
00:22:39
better. Can I work with fewer? Yes, but
00:22:41
it gets harder and you got to pull
00:22:43
harder and and so we're in a area where
00:22:45
hopefully uh people who do research on
00:22:48
the model will end up clarifying exactly
00:22:50
what the answer to your question should
00:22:51
have been Jeff. Right. But that's that's
00:22:53
the best cut currently. Okay. Um well
00:22:56
this book functions really well in
00:22:59
describing a relevant accessible uh
00:23:03
conceptually sound approach to leading
00:23:06
change in organizations. Um for your
00:23:08
readers how would you suggest they use
00:23:09
the book?
00:23:13
Often in fact the entire
00:23:16
family multiple copies for everyone
00:23:18
would be the way they should use the
00:23:20
book. Well, actually, speaking of
00:23:21
family, I I I we couldn't put this in
00:23:23
the book as they would never speak to
00:23:24
me. But once you learn to see the world
00:23:27
this way, you can see the whole world
00:23:30
this way. And I when I'm teaching it, I
00:23:33
talk about waking up and going, "Yeah, I
00:23:35
got this scene going on with my
00:23:36
pre-teenage daughters, and this is not
00:23:38
the scene I want." You know, how wait a
00:23:41
minute, like I teach this stuff. How how
00:23:43
should I rethink this? And how do you
00:23:45
know you've gone far enough? Is because
00:23:47
I went about halfway and went not there
00:23:49
yet. you know and redesign the
00:23:51
environment. So I think that once you
00:23:53
understand the theory you go through
00:23:56
this tempting period where you look
00:23:57
around and say oh my organization oh you
00:24:00
know my my my sleeping habits oh my
00:24:02
family you know uh and you can you can
00:24:04
see it everywhere you look which is
00:24:07
cool.
00:24:09
Uh another another pass at this uh would
00:24:12
be there I think there are two major
00:24:14
ways which go back goes back to
00:24:15
something we were talking about earlier.
00:24:17
Um, one is simply as a framework. So if
00:24:20
if if you if you think of the world just
00:24:22
in the way that that Cassie was
00:24:24
illustrating, if I'm thinking about it
00:24:25
in terms of systems that comprise the
00:24:27
environment around me, just doing that
00:24:30
is a different way of of approaching
00:24:32
this. It's consistent with the best out
00:24:34
of of of the tradition of Deming and
00:24:36
Jirean where they said don't don't blame
00:24:39
an individual when you keep putting the
00:24:41
individual in and new individuals keep
00:24:43
having the same problem. Think about the
00:24:44
system. Uh so just having that
00:24:47
orientation uh in and of itself is a
00:24:49
use. Uh the the the other way to use or
00:24:53
another way to use it is to very
00:24:55
consciously work your way through the
00:24:56
through the technique and to to follow
00:24:59
it in a in a far more uh far more um
00:25:02
linear fashion of working through the
00:25:04
different steps. Although it's never
00:25:06
done, there's always cycling back
00:25:08
through. Uh and and to that point um you
00:25:11
know one of the we mentioned in the
00:25:13
acknowledgements about our gratitude to
00:25:15
the different organizations we've worked
00:25:16
with and support and uh there's nothing
00:25:19
like working with somebody particularly
00:25:21
people who are pressed for time which
00:25:22
most of us are in organizations today
00:25:24
and they'll say say more about that
00:25:26
that's useful right and the
00:25:28
encouragement you get from that well
00:25:30
related to that is when you walk around
00:25:31
an organization and you see at different
00:25:34
levels in the organization they got a
00:25:36
copy of the model that we have um stuck
00:25:38
over their desk, right? And and it's and
00:25:41
it's being used in those two ways. It's
00:25:43
just a reminder to think about the world
00:25:45
in that fashion. And there may be
00:25:47
particular projects that they're
00:25:48
involved in, whether it's a business
00:25:50
enterprise system or whether it's
00:25:52
whether it's a merger where they are
00:25:54
using this in a far more detailed
00:25:56
project management guidance kind of kind
00:25:59
of fashion. And I'm reminded of one of
00:26:02
our clients coming up to me and saying,
00:26:05
"Hey, hey, I figured it out. This worked
00:26:09
because we changed all eight." You know,
00:26:11
and kind of showing me like this piece
00:26:12
of paper where he kind of mapped the the
00:26:14
framework onto what we had actually
00:26:17
done. And that's right. So, how just so
00:26:19
happens that that group designed a
00:26:21
really different system and it worked
00:26:23
and then he was able to map it back to
00:26:25
the to the model. I think one other use
00:26:27
that I throw in, we we have a chapter we
00:26:29
talk about different uses of the of the
00:26:31
model as you know uh is I think
00:26:34
particularly back to where we started
00:26:35
the conversation when you're in a world
00:26:36
that's got this much pressure to change
00:26:39
going through the use of this model can
00:26:41
lead you to the point where you say you
00:26:43
know we can't change enough of the work
00:26:44
systems to make this thing work and it's
00:26:47
a that can be a valuable contribution.
00:26:49
So you either say well let's go back and
00:26:52
figure this out again or you say not now
00:26:56
here we we got other things we can be
00:26:57
doing. So it's a basic sorting device
00:27:00
even if it leads to a point where you
00:27:01
say I don't think so we can't really do
00:27:04
this given the number of change
00:27:06
initiatives threats opportunities that
00:27:08
are present in the world uh around
00:27:10
almost any around almost any business
00:27:13
that I think is a worthwhile use just in
00:27:16
and of itself and from what I hear you'd
00:27:18
likely have a chance the next day or the
00:27:20
day after that to use the framework
00:27:22
again for the thing you just decided you
00:27:24
well we can't do this let's do that
00:27:25
let's try it on that yes right exactly
00:27:28
Well, Cassie Greg, thank you so much for
00:27:29
being with us today. Thank you. Thank
00:27:31
you.
00:27:39
[Music]
