As I think about planned change in organizations, I think of it as a conscientious decision which is made by some entity in the organization with the authority to bring about change. The change may be reactive and triggered by a current problem, situation, or business opportunity—for example, implementing a new MIS system because the old one is not robust enough to meet the current needs of the organization or the change may be proactive and based upon a vision or future desired state—for example, expanding internationally and opening ten company-owned distribution centers in Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia.

In most cases, the “mechanical” elements of the change are easily identified and the reason for the change is clear to an organization’s sponsors—the money may be allocated for its funding; a flow chart or critical PAT chart describing what the activities are may be in place as well as a timetable for the implementation of the change; and there may be a list of preferred vendors to provide the technology, expertise, and training to successfully achieve the expected outcomes from the well-thought-out implementation. All these planning strategies should guarantee “smooth sailing,” but in many cases, smooth sailing becomes “tough sailing in stormy waters” and this is due to the lack of a planned “commitment process.” The planners of the change often fail to develop and implement such a planning strategy. Read More

There is an immense amount of information about change and change management in books, case studies, newsletters, magazine articles, and blogs, etc. There is not much new to be said about the topic, but in this blog I would like to share some of my thoughts and reflections. When I think about change, I think about life and the constant unfolding of our existence. Nothing stays steady, everything morphs.

As humans, we spend our lives structuring our time, giving meaning to our experiences, staying viable by fighting entropy, and maintaining our relevance. In some ways, organizations experience the same process. They are organisms or systems that exist for a reason and that gives them meaning. An organization has processes, procedures, plans, programs, timelines, and meetings that provide structure to the life of the organization. There is a core “input-throughput-output” process that makes an organization viable as well as processes that address problems that may be threatening to the organization. Organizations also have processes that keep them relevant in the eyes of their customers and society at large. So, what is it about the concept of CHANGE that, in most cases, provokes a strong reaction, often with negative implications, in most people within organizations?
Read More

While in graduate school in the early seventies, and when the human potential movement was at its peak, I decided to participate in an intensive, week-long Gestalt therapy program at the Esalen Institute. At that time, Esalen was the most avant-garde place for living and breathing the essence of the movement. The facilitator was Dr. Fritz Perls, the founder of Gestalt therapy. During one of the sessions, while he was doing a one-on-one intervention with one of the participants, Dr. Perls raised the question, “What’s in it for you?” The session continued and then Dr. Perls came up with another phrase “You mean to tell me that you do it for nothing…nobody does anything for nothing…we all want something.” These phrases have stayed with me for decades and have influenced my approach in my consulting and coaching practice.

I have simplified these phrases into a perspective and thesis that any sustainable relationship is based upon what I call “symmetrical reciprocity.” Whenever we engage in a relationship, we want something out of it; there are no “freebies,” and when we start feeling resentful, taken for granted, used, or that we are treated unfairly, it is symptomatic that our needs, expectations, or fantasies are not being met to the extent that we believe they should be based upon what we feel when we give. Everything we do with others is an exchange, and when the exchange is perceived as “uneven” by either party, the unevenness will begin to undermine the relationship. Read More