Did not God Sometimes withhold in mercy what we ask/ We should be ruined at our own request -Hannah More (1745-1809), Moses in the Bullrushes

Today we recognize that punishment is not effective in promoting desirable behavior. We reserve it to deter illegal or otherwise undesirable actions. We may replace "punishment" with "absence of reward." The idea is to reward merit and not mediocrity. Organizations often get into real trouble when they define "merit." The performance measurement system interacts with the reward system. It determines who gets promotions, raises, and bonuses. The performance measurement system is management's magic lamp. Subordinates are the genies or djinns that grant the masters' wishes.

There is an ancient proverb that says, "Be careful what you wish. You might get it." Various folk tales and horror stories use this theme. The entity granting the wish always fulfills the wish's exact wording. However, the genie or magical item or whatever perverts the request so the result is harmful. In The Monkey's Paw, a family receives a withered monkey paw that can grant three requests. The husband and wife ask for money. The malevolent magic kills their son in an accident so they can collect the insurance.

In another story, a dragon grants a woman three wishes. She is not greedy, and merely asks that her family's farm always produce enough food. The dragon nods and flies off. It returns shortly and says, "I've eaten your family. Now, even if their farm produces nothing, it will always be enough for them." These are just folk tales and horror stories. Business and industrial Monkey's Paws are always more subtle, and often more destructive. Also, business managers rarely have a second and third wish with which to fix the results of the first. Unlike the evil magic in the stories, employees are not malevolent. They won't pervert directives merely to hurt the company. However, they do respond to the performance measurement system. If the system is bad, management will get dysfunctional results. The organization ends up serving the measurement system, instead of the system serving the organization. ... [contd] [Return to top]

Organizational survival in a dynamic competitive environment requires change. The organization must recognize when change is necessary. Using the proper techniques helps overcome resistance to change.

Managing change is among the most difficult parts of leadership. The dynamic, turbulent competitive environment makes organizational change more important than ever. However, many factors combine to resist change. Niccolò Machiavelli said the following about managing change.

We must bear in mind, then, that there is nothing more difficult and dangerous, or more doubtful of success, than an attempt to introduce a new order of things in any state. For the innovator has for enemies all those who derived advantages from the old order of things while those who expect to be benefited by the new institutions will be but lukewarm defenders. [Prince, Chapter 6]

Factors that resist change include the following. [Miller, 1986]

(1) Social norms and expectations

(2) Group cohesiveness

(3) Fear of the unknown

(4) Vested interests in the status quo

(5) Status uncertainty; perception of threats to one's current skills, status, and autonomy

(6) Networks of alliances

(7) Ingrained habits

(8) Perception of a threat to people's careers

The following forces support change. [Klein, Fig. 19.2]

(1) Magnitude of the problem [that creates a need for change]

(2) Significance of the problem

(3) Importance of the people who perceive the problem

(4) Number of people perceiving the problem

(5) Credibility of data identifying the problem [Return to top]

Most people and organizations need a crisis to show them the need for change. Foresight can prevent the crisis.

General Patton replied to people who said never to get in a "professional" contest with a skunk. His detractors said, "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." [If it ain't broke, don't fix it.] You must kill the first skunk that shows up. Otherwise he will get under the house. More skunks will follow. Then you will have to burn the house to get rid of them. "We let the skunks get under our front porch, and so we had to burn at Pearl Harbor." [Williamson, p. 98] Patton meant we have to forestall trouble as soon as we recognize it. We can't wait and hope it will go away.

People must recognize there is a problem before they will accept change. For example, alcoholics must realize they have a problem before they will change their behavior. ("I don't have a drinking problem. I drink, I get drunk, I fall down, I sleep it off. No problem.") Some drug and rehabilitation experts say the substance abuser must "hit bottom." Only then do they realize they have a problem. The same is true of many companies.

There is an adage that if you put a frog in boiling water, it will jump out. The frog instantly realizes that it has a problem. The appearance of Commodore Perry's Black Ships off Edo (Tokyo) had this effect on the Japanese. The Japanese responded with supposedly impossible changes in their society. The Pearl Harbor attack similarly shocked America out of its isolationist attitudes.
The Tower is one of the Major Arcana in the Tarot deck. The card has a picture of lightning striking a tower. It means, "Unforeseen catastrophe, disruption of one's style of life or way of thinking which may be followed by enlightenment." [Aquarian Tarot] This is the splash of boiling water that brings recognition of the need for change.

If you put the frog in warm water and heat it slowly, it will cook. The frog never notices a need for change. This was the fate of England and France as they watched Hitler take over Europe one country at a time. First he marched into the Rhineland. This wasn't too bad because the Rhineland was part of Germany. Next he wanted the Sudetenland. This wasn't too bad because many ethnic Germans lived there. The Anschluss (annexation) of Austria was acceptable, too. Then he took the rest of Czechoslovakia. This was acceptable because it was his last demand. Then he invaded Poland. This was unacceptable. However, England and France could not stop him any more. This is an example of the water heating gradually. By the time the frog notices, he is ready for the waiter to serve him.

Many major companies suffer the latter fate. They let the problems creep up on them. They don't cure the disease in its infancy. They let the skunks get under the house. Tom Peters warns that you must always worry about the competitor. If you have less than 100% of the market, someone likes the competitor's product better than yours. The competitor's 1% may become 2%, and then 3%. An overall loss of 0.25% might be a 20% loss in an important market niche. [Peters, 1987, Section I-4] That's the water heating around you.
Former Wall Street Journal reporter Paul Carroll says IBM suffered the frog's fate. In Big Blues- The Unmaking of IBM, [Crown Publishers, Inc., New York- to appear September 15, 1993] he writes, "IBM's executives actually saw most of their problems coming, both in PC's and the rest of the business. They --- forecasted the changes in the market that would cripple IBM, but IBMers couldn't quite bring themselves to do anything about those cataclysmic changes." [Cappa, "Author Contends IBM Made its Own Mistakes," Poughkeepsie Journal, 08/29/93, p. 5D]

An excellent company will recognize the need for change before events force change. Niccolò Machiavelli said, "No one should ever submit to an evil for the sake of avoiding a war. For a war is never avoided, but is only deferred to one's own disadvantage." [Prince, Chapter 3] It's too bad that Neville Chamberlain didn't read this. Recall the three Chinese doctors in the Introduction. The famous doctor cured serious illnesses. His obscure brother stopped them in their infancy. Machiavelli also uses the analogy of prevention versus cure.

--- as the doctors say of consumption [tuberculosis], that in the early stages it is easy to cure, but difficult to recognize; while in the course of time, the disease not having been recognized and cured in the beginning, it becomes easy to know, but difficult to cure. And thus it is in the affairs of state; for when the evils that arise in it are seen far ahead, which is given only to a wise prince to do, then they are easily remedied; but when in consequence of not having been foreseen, these evils are allowed to grow and assume such proportions that they become manifest to every one, then they can no longer be remedied. [Prince, Chapter 3]

Deliberate market cannibalization is an example of such foresight. Cannibalization means your own new product takes sales away from your old one. It may even make your old product obsolete. The common wisdom was that cannibalization is bad. Cannibalization is often good, and even mandatory. Tom Peters makes this clear in Thriving on Chaos. [Section I-1] If you don't do it, your competitor will. The new product helps keep and expand your market share. [Return to top]

People resist change that threatens comfortable and familiar conditions.

We will look at three case studies. One is fictional, one historical, and one industrial.

Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court is a fictional but excellent parable. Hank Morgan, a 19th century American foundry superintendent, finds himself in King Arthur's 6th century Britain. He gives the people the benefits of 19th Century technology: telegraphs, printing presses, electricity, and locomotives. He sets up schools to teach the illiterate people to read and write.
The wizard Merlin opposes Morgan's efforts. Until the end of the story, Merlin is a quack, or a medicine-show proprietor. Morgan's efforts also threaten the privileges of the nobility and the Church. Merlin and the Church represent the vested interests in the existing conditions. After King Arthur's death, the Church turns the people against the Yankee. The forces of medieval superstition triumph over modern technology.

This story repeated itself in Iran many years later. The Shah was an authoritarian but progressive monarch. He wanted to give the benefits of modern society to his country. Iran's oil revenues funded a public education system. Many Iranians came to the United States for college educations.

However, much of what the Shah did to Westernize his country went against traditional Islamic values. Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the Shah by appealing to religious beliefs. The people supported Khomeini, although they gave up some benefits of Western society.

In these two examples, the societies did not perceive a problem. The Connecticut Yankee and the Shah had educations and knew of superior ways of life. They perceived that illiteracy and lack of modern technology were problems. However, the people were content with their lives. They had never experienced anything better. Therefore, the forces for change were weak. There also were people with strong stakes in the existing structure. In both cases, the prevailing social norms made the people side with the traditional institutions. Vested interests were therefore a very strong factor against change. Fear of the unknown, including fear of societal changes, also played a role.

The third example took place during the Industrial Revolution. Between 1811 and 1816, the Luddites destroyed textile manufacturing machinery. The Luddites were English workmen who thought the machines would take their jobs away. In this case, the vested interest in the status quo was obvious. [Return to top]

3-7-3 Strategies for Change

There are three processes for causing change. [Schermerhorn, Ch. 17] The change agent is the person or group that wants to make the change.

The force-coercion approach uses authority, punishments, and rewards to compel change. People respond out of fear of punishment or desire for reward. This approach is poor, because it cannot achieve lasting change. It works only when the change agent is visible and can exercise his or her power. Force- coercion can antagonize people who might otherwise accept the change.

The empirical-rational approach uses persuasion and the power of expertise. The change agent convinces people the change is good for them. For example, explaining to Luddites that machines take over dull and repetitive tasks would be empirical- rational. The machines allow each worker to exercise skills and initiative. Higher productivity through machinery means higher wages. With the advantage of hindsight, we know this is true. Many companies export unskilled labor jobs to low-wage countries. Mechanized jobs that require skilled workers remain in the United States.

This approach assumes people are rational. This means they act in what they perceive to be their own best interests. It takes longer than the force-coercion approach. However, it can achieve long-lasting, internalized change. Internalized change means the people accept the change because they think it is good.

The normative-reeducative approach seeks to change attitudes and values. It addresses group norms, personal values, and common goals. This approach also can achieve long-lasting, internalized changes. The empirical-rational and normative- reeducative approaches can change the "true name," or culture. The organization internalizes the change. It becomes part of "the way we do business here." This is clearly better than imposing change through authority and coercion. When the change becomes part of the culture, social forces and group dynamics support it. When the change results from coercion, these forces may oppose or sabotage it.

A change has a better chance to succeed if it accords with existing structures, attitudes, values, and norms. Let the organizational culture supply the framework for change.

Machiavelli raises an important point about introducing change. "Hence, in order to retain a newly acquired state, regard must be had to two things: one, that the line of the ancient sovereign be entirely extinguished; and the other, that the laws be not changed, nor the taxes increased, so that the new may, in the least possible time, be thoroughly incorporated with the ancient state." [Prince, Chapter 3]

This has obvious implications in corporate takeovers. The new owner must be wary of making unnecessary changes in the organization's culture. The concept also applies to a new manager taking over a department. He or she should not rush to change the way subordinates do their jobs. Finally, the concept applies to organizational change.

Modern management texts echo this principle. Klein and Ritti [p. 571] offer the following advice. Note especially the first two items. These accord with Machiavelli's advice.

(1) Accommodate the existing system structure.

(2) Accommodate existing attitudes, norms, and values.

(3) Give those affected a stake in the outcome.

(4) Address potential consequences of the change.

The critical point is that we must avoid changing the norms, customs, and culture unnecessarily. The British followed this policy and were successful colonialists. They made Christianity available to the pagan natives, but did not impose it. They did not suppress local customs or practices, unless they involved murder or human sacrifice. (These included Thuggee, or ritual murder by worshippers of Kali, and suttee, or widow-burning. Indiana Jones' enemies in the Temple of Doom were Thugs.) The British enjoyed relatively good relations with their colonial subjects.

Another important tactic is to give the supporters of the existing structure a stake in the change. Show them how the change helps them. Klein and Ritti ask an important question. [p. 572] "Are the incentives such that those affected will be induced to 'buy in' rather than to resist or subvert the proposed changes?"
What happens to those who don't respect the existing structures and norms? "--- business history is full of CEO's who have tried to impose new cultures on existing corporations only to find the old cultures the victors and themselves the victims." [Deal, p. 175]

The above strategies for change sold Christianity to unlikely prospects- the Aztecs.

We have seen how missionaries superimposed Christianity on pagan cultures. It is hard to see bloodthirsty Aztecs becoming Christians. They worshipped many gods and performed human sacrifices. However, many Aztecs converted voluntarily. The Aztecs ate human flesh as part of their religion. Many cannibals believed that eating someone gave them the person's virtues. For example, eating a mighty warrior made one brave and skilled in battle. The Spaniards superimposed the Mass, with the wafer symbolizing the body of Christ. By eating the consecrated wafer, Aztecs could gain Jesus' virtues. The Aztec god Quetzalcoatl rose from death after overcoming the forces of Hell. The Spaniards quickly superimposed Jesus' death and resurrection. The Aztecs viewed the deity Tonantzin as "the mother of our flesh." The Spaniards superimposed the Virgin Mary. [Cavendish, 1989]

Frederick Winslow Taylor used these techniques to institute motion efficiency at Bethlehem Steel.

Frederick Winslow Taylor had more respect for workers than "Taylorism" ("Leave your brains at the door") suggests. In 1898, Bethlehem steelworkers earned $1.15 a day for loading pig iron onto a freight car. The average daily load was 12.5 long tons, in 92-pound pigs. Taylor thought he could more than triple that, "without bringing on a strike among the men and --- to see that the men were happier and better contented," despite the higher rate. He noticed that workers wasted energy by holding the loads without moving. Just holding the 92-pound pig was almost as tiring as carrying it. Taylor decided a worker should carry a load 43% of the time and rest 57% of the time. However, he should never stand still while under load.

Taylor singled out a worker and asked if he wanted to earn $1.85 a day. The worker showed interest. Taylor introduced his assistant to the worker. He told the worker, "You will do exactly as this man tells you tomorrow, from morning till night. When he tells you to pick up a pig and walk, you pick it up and walk, and when he tells you to sit down and rest, you sit down." Taylor got the worker's cooperation by giving him a stake in the change. Cooperating earned the man a 61% wage increase. The experiment worked, and the man loaded 47.5 long tons in a day. Taylor extended the method to the other workers. They became more productive without working harder. Their pay went up. The company got more useful work for its money. The workers got more money for the same effort. Everyone was happy. [Gies, 1991]

The Shah could have tried to buy off or coopt the Iranian clergy. He could have made concessions to their institution. He could have given the mullahs important (or important-looking) government offices. Giving the old order a stake in the desired change can get its cooperation, or at least acquiescence.
In Mark Twain's story, Hank Morgan had to defeat Merlin to secure his own position. He did this by blowing up Merlin's tower with modern explosives. Having done this, he could have given Merlin a stake in the new order. Morgan's only safe paths were to befriend Merlin or kill him. (Recall that Merlin symbolizes the old order and resistance to change.) Instead, Morgan continued to humiliate Merlin. Merlin bided his time, and took revenge at the end of the story. [Return to top]

Being a change agent can be a difficult and sometimes dangerous task. The following guidelines are useful.

(1) Use data to prove the need for change. The organization must recognize the need for the change.

(2) Recognize the common barriers to change.

(3) The normative-reeducative and empirical-rational approaches can achieve long-lasting change. The force- coercive approach cannot.

(4) Work within existing structures, norms, cultures, and customs as much as possible.

(5) Give those with vested interests in existing conditions a stake in the change. Show how the change benefits them.

(6) Let the people the change affects participate in implementing it. The change should be something they do, not something you do to them.