In Chapters 21 and 22, we identified the causes of resistance and made some general suggestions for reducing it. In Chapter 23, we identified three ‘natural’ methods for managing change which usually occur without deliberate management of resistance. Ansoff’s suggestions for managing resistance can be applied to all three methods, but they apply particularly to a fourth ‘synthetic’ method, which he coined managed resistance , or the ‘accordion’ method. This chapter will describe the accordion method in detail.
Application of Resistance Management to the Alternative Methods
The ideal application for the suggestions made in Chapters 21, 22, is to the adaptive method. The availability of time makes it possible to extend the duration of launching platform building until both the behavioral and the systemic resistance are eliminated, and the new strategy can be launched in a receptive and welcoming atmosphere.
Since the platform is built gradually, step-by-step, capacity is no problem. Throughout the process, resistance can be kept low and little power is needed. The platform building activity starts an organizational contagion process which gradually spreads through the firm, resulting in a pro-change culture, power structure, and competence .
Because of the pressures of time, the least opportunity to apply resistance reduction is in the coercive method . Nevertheless, its effectiveness can be increased if a resistance/power diagnosis is made at the outset, and if resistance is anticipated and managed throughout the process. In particular, when malfunctions and delays occur, they should be traced to their behavioral and/or systemic origins and treated at the roots, not through superficial exholiation to higher performance or through meting out punishment to wrongdoers.
During a crisis, management benefits from reduction of behavioral resistance and can focus its attention on the strategic response and on systemic changes. But, as discussed, management must remain aware that resistance typically recurs before the crisis is over. Therefore, it is important to keep the organization informed of actual progress and to dampen premature enthusiasms about recovery.
It is the managed resistance (‘accordion’) method that offers a major opportunity to apply the lessons of change management learned.
We start its discussion by comparing typical Western and Japanese approaches to decision making.
Japanese and Western Decision Making
American managers who have engaged in business negotiations in Japan frequently report a common and, to them, frustrating experience. Coming from a culture which places high premium on decisiveness, they are frustrated by the apparent disregard for speed in decision-making exhibited by their Japanese counterparts. They find it difficult to force the joint planning to a decision point, and they are surprised to learn, that before this point is reached, their Japanese counterparts frequently launch certain implementation steps. They are further surprised to find that, once the decision is reached, implementation of the Japanese commitment is likely to proceed faster and with less resistance than for the Americans.
Japanese vs. Western models of strategic action
- 1.
the concern with behavioral acceptance of new strategies from the very beginning of the decision process, and
- 2.
the early launching of projects before planning is completed, resulting in parallel planning/implementation activity.
Building the Launching Platform
‘Accordion’ method for introduction of change
But, as we have discussed, the Western culture is individualistic and consensus is not a generally accepted norm. Therefore, platform building becomes essential whenever the strategic change is discontinuous and likely to encounter resistance.
The launching platform is a set of preconditions which achieves a power-resistance balance necessary for launching of the change. The platform makes it possible to ‘lead the horse to water’ (start planning) but does not necessarily assure that ‘the horse will drink’ (accept and implement the plan). This means that the resistance reducing efforts during platform building will reduce it only enough to permit a successful launching, and that resistance monitoring and control must continue while the change takes place.
- 1.
Cultural/social changes which minimize apprehensions, enhance understanding of the need and of the impact of the change, and assure positive support for it.
- 2.
Political changes which minimize resistance from people who are expected to oppose the change, as well as creation of a pro-change coalition , powerful enough to overcome the resistance to the startup.
- 3.
Design of the change process in a way which minimizes resistance and builds acceptability for the change.
- 1.
Freeing the time of busy managers for involvement with the new strategy.
- 2.
Protecting this time from infringement of operating activities.
- 3.
Identifying and involving individuals who are best qualified and supportive of the change.
- 4.
Design of the change process in a way which minimizes systemic resistance.
- 5.
Timing of the change process, so as to produce timely results in the marketplace.
As discussed earlier, strategic change has typically been triggered by introduction of a formal strategic planning system. We suggest that this is premature for two reasons: First, one of the purposes of the initial problem solving is to determine whether the firm needs strategic planning or some other system. Thus, introducing the strategic planning at the outset is akin to putting the cart before the horse.
Second, and more importantly, the formal system focuses attention on the procedures, responsibilities, and relationships at a time when attention should be focused on rapid resolution of pressing strategic problems.
- 1.
A strategic diagnosis of the strategic problems and of their urgency.
- 2.
A behavioral diagnosis of the cultural and political resistance/support to be expected.
- 3.
A reduction of cultural resistance and mustering of political support to a point where a sufficient power base exists to launch the change.
- 4.
Preparation of a plan by which the diagnosed problems are to be resolved.
Platform building requires introspective and unbiased recognition of the cultural, political, systemic, and strategic deficiencies in the firm. Such introspection is difficult, at best disturbing, and at worst, threatening. As discussed in Chapter 18, typical responses to strategic challenges are tensions, procrastination, refusal to face reality, preoccupations with superficial problems instead of real ones.
Therefore, external help is frequently needed to assist management to make an impartial behavioral, systemic, and strategic diagnosis and to build a realistic platform for change.
Preparing a Modular Plan for Change
- 1.
Behavioral acceptance building must start from the beginning of the planning process;
- 2.
Planning must be conducted in a way which permits early launching of implementation projects.
Planning modules
Module | Planning module | Submodules/skills required |
|---|---|---|
1 | Platform building | Cultural diagnosis Power diagnosis Strategic diagnosis Master planning |
2 | Analysis of prospects | SBA segmentation Environmental forecasting SBA prospects analysis Turbulence analysis |
3 | Setting objectives | Stakeholder identification Power field mapping Participative objectives setting |
4 | Assessing resources | Financial audit Human resource audit Strategic raw materials audit |
5 | Choosing competitive posture | Key success factor analysis Competitive posture determination Competitive posture choice |
6 | Portfolio balancing | Life cycle balancing Synergy diagnosis Flexibility diagnosis |
7 | Choosing diversification posture | Gap analysis Search criteria/methods Opportunity evaluation Integration planning Capability needs Progressive response |
8 | Corporate capability needs | Strategic posture diagnosis Multicapability design |
9 | Corporate capability design | Planning system Issue management system Organizational structure Management selection Reward system Project management Environmental surveillance Information system Dual system Dual structure |
10 | Real-time response | Issue management system selection Issue identification Impact/urgency analysis Progressive commitment |
11 | Behavioral transformation | Mentality development Cultural transformation Resistance management Institutionalization |
For example, if strategic diagnosis identifies improvement in the firm’s competitive posture as the problem, the sequence of modules should be 2 → 5 → 6. If the problem is internationalization of the firm, the sequence should be 3 → 7 → 8 → 9. As the right-hand column of Table 24.1 shows, each module can further be subdivided into submodules either for serial or sequential execution by the planning groups.
Thus, as the first step, using the priorities indicated by the strategic diagnosis , management should select the particular modules and module sequence which will resolve the problems diagnosed during the platform building in the most expeditious manner, without unnecessary planning ‘makework.’
The next step in the modular design is to identify the skills which will be needed by the participants in the planning process. These are shown in the third column of Table 24.1.
The execution of each module is planned in two parts. The first is training, which equips the participants with the knowledge and skills necessary for analysis and decision. The second is the planning, which yields appropriate action decisions at the end of each module.
Since implementation projects will be launched at the end of each module, training during early modules must also focus on project implementation skills: gaining acceptance for novel departures, diagnosing and managing resistance , forming pro-change coalitions, protecting strategic work from encroachment from daily operating tasks.
The use of two-part modules (first learn, then apply the new knowledge) integrates management development into the strategic action process and avoids forcing managers into the role of ‘instant planners .’ This results in improved quality of decisions, as well as reduction of the resistance to planning .
As shown at the bottom of Fig. 24.2, decisions are made at the end of each module. These are of two kinds: (1) approval of conclusions of the module (e.g., agreement on SBA segmentation ) and (2) selection of implementation project which should be launched at this time (e.g., an early decision to start divestment from the obvious ‘dogs’ in the firm’s portfolio).
In summary, modular design of the planning process includes the following.
- 1.
Selection and sequencing of the modules.
- 2.
Training at the beginning of each module.
- 3.
Decision points at the end of each module.
Building Implementability into Planning
It is common practice in Western decision making to focus on the substance of the decision, its merits and disadvantages, and to pay little attention to the way the individuals involved feel and react. For example, in a typical introduction of strategic planning, little effort is devoted to making it clear to the participants why strategic planning is necessary, how it will affect them personally, what benefits it will bring, how it should be used in the manager’s’ daily work. Nor is any special effort made to make the results of planning understandable and acceptable to the nonparticipants in the planning process who, nevertheless, will be key to successful implementation.
It is also common practice to treat managers as instant planners , to give them forms to fill, without giving them an understanding of the nature of strategic thinking and developing their skills in strategic analysis.
A typical result of such disregard of the human aspect of planning is a feeling by the involved managers that planning is done for ‘them’ at the headquarters, that it has little to do with their own problems, that it is a form filling exercise, which distracts them from their daily responsibilities. Hence, a lack of commitment and resistance to planning .
The above results are typical in cases when planning is treated as a purely problem solving, analytic exercise. However, when the planning process is designed to deal with both problem solving and behavioral development, the results have been a dramatic opposite. Instead of demotivation and lack of commitment, managers develop a new strategic mentality , an understanding of the importance and relevance of the strategic problems to their daily work, and a willingness to deal with them. And they regard the planning process as a useful tool for solving these problems. We shall refer to the process of including behavioral development in the planning process as building implementability into planning .
- 1.
Involvement of all managers, working in groups, who will be responsible for implementation, as well as of managers and other individuals (e.g., R&D experts) who make key contributions to the decision process. Strategic participation does not mean strategic decentralization. On the contrary, the upper and lower levels of the involved management each have their own strategic thing to do, as well as joint problems to solve. Experience has shown that involvement and continued contribution by the top management is a key factor in ensuring organizational acceptance. It should be noted that involvement and contribution are not the same thing as enthusiastic but passive pronouncements in favor of planning, which have been advocated as an early antidote to resistance. It is essential that top management should have its own planning tasks and that it makes decisions at the end of each planning module.
- 2.
During the planning process, information on reasons for planning, and the expected outcomes, and the impact of the change on the organization are communicated and discussed with individuals who will be involved in the implementation. Further, general bulletins are sent to nonparticipants who will, or feel that they will, be affected by the strategy changes.
- 3.
Before each planning and implementation module, education and training are given to the participants in the relevant concepts, skills, and techniques.
- 4.
The planning process is focused on solving problems identified during the strategy diagnosis. Mechanistic filling of planning forms for the benefit of the headquarters is avoided.
- 5.
Problem-solving techniques and procedures are kept simple, compatible with the level of knowledge, and skills of the participants. The emphasis is on the understanding of the logic of the problem and not on technical sophistication of the solution. This point is of particular importance, because experience has shown that, if the details get to be too numerous and technical, managers can no longer see the wood for the trees and become demotivated and frustrated.
- 6.
Planning tasks assigned to each group of managers should have a real impact on their own jobs.
- 7.
To the extent possible, new strategic information (which is different from the usual operating information supplied by the accounting system) is provided to the planning groups. However, the state of strategic information is frequently so poor that planning would have to be delayed substantially, if a fully adequate strategic database is to be a prerequisite. In such cases development of a strategic database should be one of the early projects. Until the project is completed, planning should rely on the experience and judgment of qualified managers.
- 8.
If the necessary resources and capacity are available, implementation of planning is not delayed until the plan is complete and approved. Instead, implementation projects are launched early in the manner to be described later.
Controlling the Planning Process
In the accordion method, the planning process has two aims: to make realistic and timely decisions and to build acceptance and enthusiasm for implementation of these decisions. For effective control of resistance, it is essential that the decision milestones at the end of each module should match the appropriate acceptance milestones . This is referred to as behavioral control at the top of Fig. 24.2.
Control of implementability
Line B is a case in which enthusiasm for and acceptance of change are built faster than the substantive progress. This is the case of frustration through inaction which had been observed in firms at the end of behavioral OD (organizational development) experiences. Being a purely behavioral technique, OD builds organizational acceptance of change, but produces no decisions, nor launches any strategy changes. A phrase heard on such occasions is ‘now that we have our human problems solved, why don’t the profits go up?’
Line C represents the previously discussed historical experience in strategic planning, which is the ‘death in the drawer’: Plans are made but they lack the necessary acceptance and implementation is blocked.
The corrective actions are clearly different in the two cases. In the former, vigorous planning should be launched; in the latter, efforts should be focused on reducing resistance.
The forty-five-degree line represents a line of balanced progress . As planning progresses, acceptance of the results is raised in step, thus enabling prompt and effective implementation.
The parallel progress is monitored, and if progress along one of the axes lags behind the other, appropriate corrective measures are taken before implementation projects are launched.
Thus, it is necessary to monitor and control the joint progress toward decisions and toward organizational acceptance of these decisions. Experience has shown that this is best accomplished by a process management team , composed of the strategic planners and outside consultants, who are expert in behavioral process management (Ten Dam and Siffert, in Ansoff et al. 1982-D).
Progressive Decision Making and Early Implementation
In the customary approach to planning, final decisions and the launching of implementation are delayed until the plans are completed and approved by management at the end of the planning cycle. The reasoning usually is: ‘We cannot decide until after all options have been made clear, and we cannot start implementation until after the decisions have been made.’
In the accordion method, a different approach is taken. At the end of each module, it usually becomes clear that certain actions will have to be taken, regardless of the conclusions of the subsequent planning steps. For example, at the end of module 2 (analysis of prospects) it usually becomes evident that the firm’s environmental surveillance capability is deficient and must be improved as quickly as possible. At the end of the competitive strategy analysis (module 5) it may become evident that the firm has no future in certain of its traditional SBAs and should quickly proceed with divestment to avoid further losses.
- 1.
The spacing of decisions over time creates an evenly spaced decision workload on top management, as compared with the typical decision overload which occurs at plan approval time.
- 2.
Early launching of projects similarly spreads implementation workload over time and assures earlier completion of the overall change process.
- 3.
Implementation conducted in parallel with planning provides valuable feedback on the validity of the planning decisions and assumptions.
- 4.
Early experience with decision-implementation develops and perfects the strategic decision/implementation capability in advance of the major decisions which will be made at the end of the planning process.
- 5.
The option of early decisions/implementation permits management to control the duration of the overall change process and thus tailor it to the time that is available for making the change.
The major drawbacks of the early decisions/implementation are the additional workload it puts on management and on the implementers, as well as the increased complexity of the overall process. Therefore, it is not always feasible to launch all of the projects made possible by the early decisions.
Institutionalizing a New Strategy
As illustrated in Fig. 24.2, because of external market pressures, a new strategy is likely to be in place before the capacity/capability needed for its effective exploitation have been fully developed, and before the power structure and culture have become supportive.
- 1.
The strategy chronically fails to reach full profitability.
- 2.
The hidden and pent-up resistance surfaces and attempts to rollback the change.
Therefore, to assure stability and full profitability of a new strategy, the behavioral development and competence/capacity projects must be continued to completion after the new strategy has been launched on the marketplace.
Summary
In Western countries, the three ‘natural’ methods for managing discontinuous change (coercive, adaptive, and crisis response ) follow a serial problem-solving paradigm which was developed by the rationalist philosophers and, in particular, by Descartes. Applied and elaborated in management practice, this paradigm prescribes that planning must precede implementation, that planning must be decisive and performed expeditiously, and that it should be exclusively focused on selecting the optimum course of action. Concern with implementation should be delayed until after planning has been completed.
A comparison of this paradigm with Japanese practice shows that the Japanese solve problems differently: They use a parallel planning/implementation process, and use the planning process not only to arrive at the optimal decision but also to assure its cultural and political acceptance. As a result, their planning process lasts longer, but the implementation is quicker and change takes less time.
- 1.
Building a launching platform for the change.
- 2.
Using a modular process , interspersed with decision points to plan the change.
- 3.
Building management training into each module.
- 4.
Building implementability into the planning process through participation, communication, focus on solving problems relevant to the planners , simplicity of problem-solving routines, involvement of top management in planning, and early development of the strategic database.
- 5.
Monitoring and controlling the planning process to assure that each planning module has reached acceptability before it is launched.
- 6.
Launching implementation projects after each module.
- 7.
Institutionalizing the change through development of necessary competence /capacity and a supportive culture/power structure.
An important feature of the change management method described above, which gives it the name ‘accordion method,’ is that it permits management to expand or contract the duration of the change in response to the urgency dictated by the environment.
Exercise
The manager of your division, to whom you report, wants to make a major strategic reorientation. The new orientation is not clear, but he has convinced himself that the present prospects of the division are for stagnation and eventual decline . He further feels that the decline is not far off and that the division must be turned around within five years.
- 1.
Your assignment is to prepare a 45-minute presentation and a two-page memorandum which will help the manager decide what to do, and how he should proceed in launching a major strategic orientation of your division.