2- Additions to Kotter's model on changing organizations

The vision of JP Kotter (1) on change in organizations is very popular. His eight phase approach is widely seen as a good recipe for successfully implementing change in organizations. Nevertheless, we note that very many changes encounter resistance. Apparently the model is not that strong after all, and it still leads to delay, energy loss, and disrupted cooperation within organizations. Based on my experience, I dare to formulate some important improvements and additions that considerably increase the chance of success.

1-       Step 1: Creating a sense of urgency: A good idea, if not for the fact that it still generates a rather negative energy. Using the worst form of negative energy to initiate change is the 'burning platform' idea. Kotter's sense of urgency is slightly better, but still negative. The best approach is clearly to start the change with a shared ambition and to build on that.

2-       Steps 3, 4 and 5: in fact, this approach still comes down to making solutions in the heads of the management and then 'selling' them. This separation of 'thinking' and 'doing' is a legacy from Taylorism, and causes much demotivation. It is a pronounced application of the Transactional Analysis (2) (explained elsewhere). The better approach is to work out the solution together with those involved in the change. A funnel technique and sociocratic decision-making are the solution here and create a framework of real participation without getting bogged down in unrealistic decisions.

3-       At the start of the process, it is advisable to communicate the rules that will frame the change process. This will, to a large extent, compensate for the uncertainty, which always occurs with change. "What if ..." is a common source of doubt.

4-       In order to make it a learning process, it would be essential, certainly after each short-term result, but also permanently, to make an evaluation of the operation and to compare them with the objectives and ambitions. Changes that are not dynamic in nature are static, and in themselves become a demonstration that stability is the normal condition, not adaptation and growth.

5-       Step 8; anchor the change in the organizational culture. Well seen: something that does not fit in with the culture will be rejected. But if anchoring is only considered after the change, a sense of resistance will be felt throughout the entire process. The culture must be made sufficiently receptive early on in the process for the change to succeed.

These are not insurmountable things, are they? It does not require superior intelligence or excessive means to achieve? Is it due to a lack of empathy or too great a focus on the desired result that these additional steps are not taken? Or is it just because we are stuck in obedience thinking where leadership is concerned? Then the Transactional Analysis (2) is very decisive for our actions, especially in leadership!

(1)    JP Kotter, Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1998

(2)    Berne E., Games people play,  Grove Press Inc, New York, 1964 (this concept on human behavior and relations is explained in another page in this BLOG: "TA: How does collaboration become easy?"

Hugo Der Kinderen