Beyond Employment: Hunker Down? By Becky Spears

This is the first post in a series about the future of work. 

Early in my career my parents worried about my carefree attitude about employment. 

• How can you work for a company that doesn't have a retirement plan? 
• What are you thinking – changing jobs after only 3 years? 

As an employee and part of a new generation, I was responding to a world in which US businesses were:

• Launching subsidized 401K programs as they discontinued retirement programs
• Using that somewhat new process Reduction In Force (RIF) to routinely manage employee resource levels

Employers said that responsibility for our careers and our retirement were now up to us, and so we had less reason to plan careers around one employer, a trend that has continued.

Expectations about and perhaps the very meaning of employment seem to be evolving. At the turn of this century Daniel Pink's Free Agent Nation documented a new workforce that is composed of people who are free from the bonds of a large institution, and agents of their own futures. Pink saw this workforce moving further outside the corporation, setting up consultant businesses, cottage enterprises, guilds, family businesses, and other self-managed modes of performing work for value. He shared stories of how people often made this change as the result of job loss, and yet many found reasons to stay. 

This emerging free agent possibility became a key dynamic for me during a baby boomer Scenario Planning initiative that I led about five years ago. Our Scenario Planning methodology was based on the Global Business Network (GBN) Developing and Using Scenarios Workshop that I had attended. In a desire to implement what I'd learned, I cajoled several baby boomer friends to embark on a wild scenario planning ride that we called Lifestyles 2015. I think we were all surprised when employment emerged as one of the two most critical dynamics (the other was the economy).

Even more surprising to me was that this free agent model emerged as a critical uncertainty in Scenario Planning sessions I subsequently led with business teams, causing me to ponder:

• To what extent and in what way is this trend inevitable?
• Are OD and HR professionals (myself included) prepared for this type of change in our clients' businesses?
• Who will take advantage of this change? 

In this post I'll describe Lifestyles 2015; future posts will describe other scenario planning outcomes related to employment.  [Editor's Note: a description of the scenario planning process appears at the end of this article.]

Lifestyles 2015

Two of our four future worlds were dominated by a free agent employment model – Hunker Down and Be Happy. The other two worlds were dominated by a traditional corporate employment model – Moat and Drawbridge and Corporate Life.  Here is the complete grid showing all four oppositional worlds as well as the critical dynamics that define and separate them. 

As these potential future worlds emerged from our work, the drivers we identified that would favor free agency included:

• Corporations offer employees less advantageous benefits compared to those widely available without employment (healthcare as the major new factor).
• Technology advances make it easier for people to set up a personal workplace (at home or elsewhere).
• Individuals desire more independence (flexible work time, choice in assignments) and aging baby boomers become more interested in using their acquired wisdom and expertise on relevant work.
• Favorable tax treatment encourages self-employment.

Potential drivers that would favor employment included:

• Corporations prefer on-site workers and are hesitant to contract with outsiders. 
• Corporations create the best places to work, offering benefits, flexibility, and amenities that are hard to improve on outside.
• Rising healthcare costs make self-employment viable only for those without that need.
• IRS becomes suspicious of the self-employed and increases audit activity. 

The Worlds of Hunker Down and Moat and Drawbridge

These worlds are on the left of the grid, the worlds in economic decline.

The term Hunker Down originated with the Scots and was first recorded in the 18th century. It means to take shelter and assume a defensive position, while also being ready to move at a moment's notice.  It's a good label for this potential world and probably a good label for many US workers and companies today.  Moat and Drawbridge symbolizes the protective strategy that you can also see today, as fewer people change jobs.  It's just safer to stay in your castle.   

In Hunker Down, we imagined an economic crisis centered on energy and water. Cost for these vital resources rises due to global and local scarcity versus demand. In addition the aging US delivery systems' capacity and resilience issues create shortages. Health care costs continue to increase, adding to economic pressures.

In response, Hunker Down corporations increase outsourcing to partners, contractors, consultants, or off-shore, implemented more automation, and reduce their reliance on employees. They increase delivery of services via the web – value which can be created or accessed from anywhere. The associated growth in technology infrastructure enables the self-employed to set up businesses in their homes or cars. Although economic times are tight, the small business sector grows as more people who lost their jobs chose this path. 

In Moat and Drawbridge, the world is in worse shape. Global tensions result in restrictions to trade and heightened concerns about security and control of intellectual property. US brands are furthered inhibited by the US political role internationally. Environmental degradation begins to take its toll.  Taxes and licenses imposed on use of the internet slow its use further. The US is in recession. Power and water are rationed.

In response, Moat and Drawbridge companies create protective walls. Although employment is still a cost to consider, they prefer this alternative to bringing in outsiders, thereby making it difficult for the self-employed to gain access. This is a tight world of high unemployment, protective security measures, and restricted self-employment opportunities. Large corporations dominate industry. Employees work by their rules. 

We considered options for our planning if we would eventually live in one of these worlds.  Our most critical options were:

• Develop skill and knowledge to ensure value as workers whether employed or self-employed
• Increase energy independence
• Save more and spend less
• Beware the US stock market; consider foreign investments
• Ensure that one member of the family stays employed by a corporation, to ensure health insurance coverage and some economic stability (if Moat and Drawbridge, everyone stays employed as long as possible)

The Worlds of Be Happy and Corporate Life 

These worlds are on the rosier right side of the grid, with a growing economy.  Be Happy has the same free agent and employment drivers, but due to economic wealth people are making the choice.  Corporate Life has the same employment drivers, but this is a wealthy world where corporations woo employees.    

In Be Happy, the US economy steadily grows due to successful investment in alternative energy and the emergence of the US as a leading world energy supplier. Even Detroit unveils new, cheap, energy efficient cars. This economic stability results in a shift in lifestyles to favor more balance between money and personal pursuits. Businesses that offer creative travel options grow as many people take breaks between work engagements. National borders are more porous and people truly work from anywhere -- tools and connectivity options multiply. Due to pressure from the large successful sector of self-employed, tax and other business laws evolve to favor this type of work.

In Corporate Life, the American economy is gradually growing and poverty becomes a thing of the past. Cottage industries are crippled by successful corporations, which offer employees real estate financing and a host of new benefits.  Health advances and excellent health benefits offered by corporations make that mode of employment the most desired. Even formerly retired people return to fill open positions, as flexible workdays are the norm.

In both Be Happy and Corporate Life, differences between an employee and a consultant blur. Many employed also work from home.  Homes become work and education centers, a hub for a family that often includes more than one generation.  Health coverage options are extensive and individuals choose the plans that match their values. There is a greater focus on well care, improving health overall.  

Options for our planning if we would eventually live in either of these:

• Learn how to use the net and exploit it in every way
• Develop skills that enable independent work (whether as employee or self-employed)
• Explore and/or consider joining a professional guild or association
• Invest in alternative energy companies and healthcare industries
• Consider a life coach – a mentor who helps you identify the most important activities for the rest of your life

The Real World of 2009
Today the economy would place us on the left side of the Lifestyles 2015 grid, experiencing Hunker Down or Moat and Drawbridge. 

Although only 11% of adults are self-employed (based on the 2009 Current Population Survey conducted by the Census Bureau & Bureau of Labor Statistics), the dominant employment model is under pressure.  The Kauffman Foundation index of entrepreneurial activity's 2008 report shows a statistically significant increase in the creation of new businesses during 2008 (+.3% over 2007).  Their data show that:   

• An average of 530,000 new businesses were created monthly in 2008. 
• The business classes experiencing the most growth were those with low and middle income potential.
• The people creating the most new businesses were aged 52 to 64.

In 2008, small businesses were on the rise, many created by boomers.

A NY Times article further explores this push toward starting a business in On to Plan B: Starting a Business by Mickey Meece.  Meece describes the changes that these new small business owner's experiences are having on concepts of employment. As the economy improves, some who have started businesses will remain entrepreneurs while others will will return to the workforce, but with a different vision of employment. Many say that even if they go back, they will continue their businesses on the side.

Even in these tight times, with many people eagerly seeking employment, the Pew Research Center found that self-employed adults are significantly more satisfied with their jobs. 

I am thankful that my scenario planning activity has focused me on this area, as I suspect a further evolution in the definition of employment is happening and is relevant for my future OD and HR work.  Daniel Pink argued that the shift toward more flexible employment models is beneath the radar of the political and media establishment.  Which is very understandable -- as Peter Schwartz, the founder of GBN, has said so well: The dominant intellectual strategy that people bring to the future is denial. It is hard to look past today's realities. This is why I believe Scenario Planning is so valuable.  Every deductive Scenario Planning workshop I've participated in or led has changed the way I see the emerging world and has changed the news I follow.

Will one of the four worlds come true? Nope. Often the reality cycles amongst them all, taking a piece of this and a piece of that and perhaps shifting in this direction, and then in that, in an environment that continues to update.  Scenario Planning is not meant to predict the future.  It is about busting open those mental barriers to consider potential futures that are not simply an extension of the past, and thereby enabling creation of a more robust strategy businesses or individual participants. 

Many of the drivers toward free agency are here today. The current economic situation has pushed many outside their comfort zone, into a new type of work.  In our professional futures, we'll encounter some of these people as employees who have returned to corporations, but with a different perspective. We'll encounter some as our clients' partners, consultants, etc. We'll work with clients who will embrace this expanded view of human capital as a strategic part of their business plan. The nature of the workforce is changing.  We need to consider that change as we implement OD and HR practices, to lead and support effective utilization of the the entire spectrum of a fluid human capital resource. 
___________________________________________________________________________________________

About the Scenario Planning Process

Deductive scenario planning following the GBN methodology is an intensive process and hard, difficult work.

• We begin with a consideration of the major forces that are driving change in the world.  This pushes us to think outside our local reality and produce an environmental backdrop that will help us see divergent potential futures.
• Through iterative convergence and divergence, we select the most critical uncertainties so we can focus on four oppositional worlds, and we consider probable causal factors for each. 
• We create scenarios (stories) depicting those futures, which gives them character and makes them more real to us. 
• Then we return to our local view as we determine the implications each of those futures would have for us, and potential actions we can take.
• The final step is to select which potential actions we'll include as we develop a viable and robust strategic plan, as well as identify key indicators that will help us continually reassess and adapt as the real world unfolds. 

Leading Effective Team Transitions: Beyond the Embroidered T-shirt, by Ben Bratt

I’ve never met US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, or for that matter, any of the justices that sit on that august bench with him. As a boy on a family vacation to Washington, DC, sometime around 1974, I remember we took great pains to tour the White House and Congress, but instinctively avoided anything quite as boring as the judicial branch. When Katie Couric elicited a squirm from Sarah Palin with a challenge to name a landmark Supreme Court case she disagreed with other than Roe v. Wade, well, I squirmed with her. Whether or not I agree with Sarah politically, I felt for her. How many of us can name another landmark case? I’ll spot you Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka. Got another?

For all its import, the Supreme Court seems pretty darn opaque, and even a bit mysterious, to those of us peering in from the outside. I’m sure constitutional scholars have better insights than we casual observers. But we’re curious, no? What really goes on behind those closed doors? A 5-to-4 vote on a key issue can have wide-ranging impact on the liberties of future generations of US citizens, and yet we’ll never know if they reached consensus about gun control rights after a couple of hours playing Grand Theft Auto in the Court’s video lounge.

Like most organizations, the effectiveness of the Court’s “executive team” bears uncommon significance. With the departure of David Souter and the arrival of its newest member, Sonia Sotomayor, the team now faces the complexity that accompanies these transitions. How will they handle this turmoil? Team members often use a mix of nostalgia (“Remember when David put Vaseline on John’s gavel and it went flying out of his hand? Yeah, I miss that guy”) and initiation (“Hey, it’s the new kid on the block.”) But as leader of this team, what’s the Chief Justice’s role in helping this group of people form relationships, have effective conversations, work well together despite their differences, and create meaningful outcomes?

The following farce may (or may not) be what happens when the Court kicks off its new session in October. I’m kind of hoping it’s not what happens.

[Editor: The vignette below may best make its point if the reader has an accompanying picture of the current US Supreme Court.]

++++ Setting: October 5, 2009, 9 am, 1 First ST NE, Washington DC ++++

John: Morning, everyone. Welcome back. Relaxing summer break? We’ll get started if everyone can take their seats.

Ruth: Oooh, new leather chairs…Ruth l-i-i-i-k-e-s!

John: [aside, in whisper] Yeah, can you believe it? Didn’t think it would survive the latest budget cuts.

John: Antonin, would you grab a chair please?

Antonin: Sam’s in the seat I usually sit in.

Sam: Leg room, Antonin. Just like last year, I need it, you don’t.

John: People. Please.

[Sonia rushes in with an armful of folders, laptop, grade latte, and a plastic Safeway bag filled with unidentified clothing.]

Sonia: [smiles] Hi! Sorry I’m late! Couldn’t find the conference room, and the numbering system in this building is something straight from a behavioral rat lab gone horribly wrong. I’m not going to get shocked if I sit in the wrong chair, am I?

Ruth: [aside] Sweetie, most everything around here is shocking, one way or another. Plant yourself right here, next to me.

John: No problem. Glad you made it. We meet in here every Monday at 9. By the way, what’s in the bag?

Sonia: I wanted to bring everyone something special on my first day. So, I got T-shirts made! There’s one for everyone…it has your name on it. [She starts passing them out.]

Stephen: Uh…it’s “S-t-e-P-H-e-n.” With a PH. Not a V. Nice embroidery, though. This is real professional work. From that little shop over on Wisconsin Ave?

Clarence: Really? Seriously? Sonia, teal just isn’t my color.

Sonia: Sorry about that. Just thought I’d spice things up with some diverse, festive colors. Those black robes are slimming, but just a bit depressing.

Ruth: I like what’s on the back -- “We’re gonna habeas a good time! Top Court, 2009-10 World Tour.”

John: Thanks, Sonia. I like mine. It’s been years since I wore a shirt that said “The Big Kahuna.”

Anthony: John Paul…you’re awfully quiet this morning. Everything OK?

John Paul: Mostly OK…thanks for asking. It’s just…this is the last kick-off meeting I’ll have with you people, and I’m already thinking about how much I’m going to miss this next October. And I’m missing Dave.

John: Yeah, we’ll likely have some turnover in the team in the coming months. Probably something to pay attention to. Sonia, this team has been around for a number of years, and admittedly we’re probably not all that good with change. Are there things you need from us to help you hit the ground running?

Sonia: John, with all due respect, while this institution has been around for a long time, this team is brand new. Someone left, someone arrived. That changes everything except our team name and our mission. It’s been my experience that when you have turnover, you change the dynamic between the people. And when you change the dynamic, you change the process and the outcomes. I’d rather think this is a brand new team.

Antonin: Listen. We have ways of doing things. This little welcoming thing here is nice, and the T-shirt idea is cute, but we have work to do. This team has been here since before your, or my, parents landed on this country’s shores. We already know the ways we work together, fight, make up, disagree…whatever. Learn the rules, keep your head down, and you’ll do fine.

Sonia: OK, I hear you, but listen: I’m here, and not necessarily to “fit in.” I’m here with my beliefs, aspirations, preferences, and foibles. Dave’s gone, and I’m here. That changes things. Sure, we have patterns and norms, and every Monday we sit around this table, but for me, it’s a brand new team. I think for all of us, it’s a brand new team, as much as that might annoy – or frighten – some of us.

Samuel: [with his new T-shirt tied around his head, looking decidedly like a Sikh, beginning with strains of Gershwin] ‘You like potato, I like potahto, You say tomato, I say tomahto…let’s call the whole thing off…’

John: [sigh]

+++++

Well, let’s not call the whole thing off. Not yet.

Two views of what it fundamentally means when someone joins a team have begun to emerge, well-argued by Justices Scalia and Sotomayor. And they’re hard people to disagree with.

Justice Scalia asks us to consider that teams are entities that transcend individual comings and goings, things that have a life of their own despite changes in membership. Dave retires? Get him a framed picture of the team at last year’s go-kart offsite signed by the whole crew. Sonia arrives? We can tell her the ins and outs of how the group ticks and make sure she knows how to get her expense report approved.

While Justice Scalia is surely partly correct, Justice Sotomayor asks us to broaden our thinking on this issue. Sure, a team as an institution, or perhaps as an artifact of a culture, has a kind of existence. But fundamentally, a team is the current aggregation of the people around the table, in this irreplaceable constellation, and their unique patterns of conversation, interaction, and productivity.

The team is not just the “who,” but it’s also the “what” and the “how.” The conversation that lives in smoldering fires, the debate waged with worn and pitted axes, the reconciliation reached with calloused hands, the quiet pride shared when success is achieved: how these people do those things is the functional definition of their team.

Justice Sotomayor’s perspective invites us to honor teams as the unique, ever-changing crapshoots that they are. Stephen has a bad piece of fish for lunch. John Paul inks a lucrative deal with a publisher. Ruth gets disappointing news on her recent medical tests. Team members confront daily gusts of change that impact their life-long work, whether acknowledged or not, in addition to more profound changes, like comings and goings, retirements and deaths.

In my years as a consultant, this is where I see leaders like John struggle with these issues. They come to a place where they confront the implications of these two alternative meanings for “team.” They run into questions that get harder to answer. If a team is a well-oiled machine, then why does simply replacing one cog sometimes throw everything into chaos? Why did Thurgood’s departure leave such a vaccum? Why don’t some of the team’s members seem to trust Sonia? And why does that suspicion of trust have such an impact on how the team works and what it produces?

In place of that somewhat worn “well-oiled machine” metaphor, perhaps new, non-mechanistic metaphors would help us navigate these points of critical transition.

Maybe a team is more like a spider web, and each team member a twig or anchoring point that enables the web itself to exist. Delete a twig and the supporting connection it provides to the whole, and even the web itself, loses much, if not all, of its functional capability. The web needs re-threading, but this can only be done when a new anchoring twig is found.

Broadened then, leadership during team transitions is perhaps like a spider carefully tending its web after a storm has passed. An inventory is required:

• Which anchoring twigs are still here?
• Are they strong and reliable?
• What’s the state of the web between the anchors?
• What connections need strengthening?
• What threads must be built from scratch?
• Is the web strong enough to catch bugs?
• And can we get this re-woven in time to catch the days’ first flies?
  

This isn’t work that comes naturally to most leaders. In the crush of daily work – the board members that need soothing, the direct reports that need direction, the media and analysts howling about the quarterly results – there is in fact little time to consciously attend to such change. Sadly, too often, team members muddle through, learn the rules of the road, and try to earn their peer’s respect, without so much as a helping hand.

With the correct support though, attending to the team’s anchors and linkages is not only possible, it’s rewarding. Those rewards are intangible, such as a sense of collective that’s been built by everyone to withstand the tough times. They are also tangible, such as a greater ability to achieve shared goals that have hard metrics.

Hopefully, in the weeks and months leading up to the Court’s first session on the first Monday in October, Chief Justice John Roberts will feel spidery and attend to the silk that bonds his team. Pundits indicate this is already something he does in the realm of legal argument -- working with his justices to forge consensus (though this would seem a Sisyphean task). It would be fascinating to watch that first team meeting in October to see how he handles the new team’s dynamics.

So, I’m interested in your perspective. What’s a team? Does a brand new team emerge when membership changes? And if so, how do we approach it?

Ben Bratt is an executive team effectiveness coach and organizational development consultant based in Seattle, WA. He merges business acumen with a strategic perspective and 15-year track record of consulting to enable bottom-line business results.

His clients appreciate his creativity, systemic design, and clear-headed pragmatism. His global experience and broad-based expertise accrued through hands-on senior contributor and leadership positions in Fortune 500 IT and automotive companies.

He can be reached at bennetthbratt@gmail.com
For his Linked In profile click here.

Who's On First? by Becky Spears

You're probably familiar with Abbott & Costello's legendary routine, Who's On First? They performed it hundreds of times, yet rarely delivered it quite the same way twice. Even the films are different. If you're not familiar or if you want a good laugh once again, click here, Naughty Nineties.

As funny as it is to watch the play on words and Lou's frustration and confusion, it isn't so funny when I'm involved in a major redesign or transformation initiative, and the phrase who's on first comes to mind.

Redesigns and transformations are pervasive today. Do you know of an organization that isn't changing? Those changes are supposed to improve execution, often against revised strategies. The leaders I've worked with are sharp business people who perceive a critical need to change. As they contemplate the actions necessary to do so, I've seen them struggle with some key, critical questions. How do I best use my current staff? What decisions do I share? When do I include others? How do I justify inclusion and exclusion?

One of their most difficult challenges can be releasing control over the change -- in essence sharing their power with the people they are leading. It feels risky. Will everyone understand what we need to leverage and why? Will they believe the new success factors are necessary to differentiate us? Who knows how to build these new core capabilities?

In today's highly competitive global environment, there has always been a burning need to move, a need to do it first or catch up quickly. This results in an impatience with stopping to plan some of the murkier aspects, like people's roles during design and implementation. Nevertheless, I've found that the most successful initiatives start with stopping to carefully consider and plan who's on first and why, as well as second, and third. That planning enables action.

Any redesign involves changing minds as much as it involves shifting business processes, strategies, and tactics. The way to reach those minds, as well as produce the right solution, is structured involvement. But it isn't easy.

• I've seen leaders include too many people, and, more frequently, too few.
• I've also seen transformations that balanced the involvement level very well. Yet I've seen the same leaders, who have managed one transformation beautifully, encounter struggles and issues in a different business situation.
  

Abbott & Costello probably kept their routine fresh by continually adapting it, and they probably adapted it to relate to their audience and place. Similarly, each redesign or transformation has a special audience and business setting, and it is important to match those in the plan.

When I merge the best of the best practices I've seen, the leaders produced a plan that resolved the following issues at the start:

• How do I want to use the current leadership team?
• Who has the knowledge most critical for this emergent change?'
• Who will understand and champion key new elements?
• Who will implement the change?
• What is the right team size for involvement at various stages?
  

They didn't use a formula to answer these questions. The most effective results occurred when the leader worked with a small team to consider these questions and structure an optimal plan for this business situation and its people. These decisions can be almost as important to success as the shift in direction itself.

How do I want to use the current leadership team?
All of the leaders I've worked with have strongly believed that they needed to include all of their direct reports in planning the change, regardless of current or future role.

The questions to resolve are whether all have equal involvement, how much design power to share with them, and how much they can be expected to achieve without involving others. The leader's direct reports are essential in determining direction, but they have limited bandwidth since they need to keep the current business model running until the new one is in place. In addition, most don't have all the detail necessary to make the best design trade-offs.

Further, if the leader expects changes in this group, then there's the challenge of managing expectations. This varies depending on the specific business situation and the leader's style. Nevertheless, the most effective solution I've seen has included open discussions in which the leader is candid about the situation and asks for proactive involvement, coupled with individual sessions addressing concerns and interests, and offering support.

Who has the knowledge most critical for the emergent change? Often the knowledge about details that will make or break a redesign reside in people who are not directly reporting to the leader. Should some of them join the design team? Sometimes. How will they fit in? They may need support and encouragement from the team. Do they join the implementation team? Certainly, but how many and in what sequence? And these decisions need to be part of the communication plan, so their roles are clear.

It is also critical to set up a mechanism to ensure dialog between all teams and with all people who will be involved in the design and in the implementation plan. This is especially true if teams are formed at various hierarchical levels or in silos. Two-way discussion is crucial horizontally and vertically – progress reports or reviews don't encourage needed debates about the issues. The people involved in design and implementation need to share their thinking and hear the thinking of the leadership team members. The leadership team needs to benefit from their questions and ideas.

Who will understand and champion key new elements?
Sometimes a few people within the organization are natural champions – others are influenced by them. Or sometimes the changing direction includes concepts that are so new and different that they need focus. I've seen the formal creation of one or more champion roles serve as a great enabler.

Leaders have effectively included these champions in the early design stage. This is the easiest way to transfer knowledge to them and gain from their valuable perceptions. While it can seem like an extra step to explain their role to the leadership team, design teams, and organization, the effort will be rewarded. When the leader trusts the people in the organization and is open about expectations of the new direction, the act of establishing and announcing a champion or champions advances the vision, demonstrates serious support for it, and aids the champion's performance in that role.

Who will implement the change?
I've always found it a bit scary when the new, well-planned design is launched and the people in the organization start changing the way they work. No matter how well planned, a well-managed transition will include changes. The extent to which people have been involved in the change, particularly through design participation, the smoother the transition. Always. Yet as the new ideas roll out, some will need changes for the organization to perform well.

While it is sometimes hard to think about this aspect at the start, starting by creating a plan for implementation roles results in fewer issues later. These plans need to include how changes to the plan will be managed during implementation.

At the start is also a good time to plan the sequence – as the design moves toward implementation, where are the hand-offs, who stays with the project, who joins – essentially what are the anticipated stages and who is involved in each?

What is the right team size for involvement at various stages?
People in the business – certainly the people I've worked with -- want the firm and its leaders to succeed. They want to be involved in ensuring success, and, consequently, they want to know who is playing which role, how to provide information and ideas that will help, and when it is their turn. An important success factor in involvement plans is to structure roles and teams as simply and as clearly as possible.

If the change is large, it makes good business sense to involve many teams and people. Yet I've seen initiatives where too many people are involved, charters of various teams are unclear, communication is vertical and not horizontal, and everything slows down. These large change situations need solid team designs and structures, including roles and discussion mechanisms. A sequential plan can be critical for a large change -- what will be tackled first, second, and so on.

If the change is small and simple, then communication can substitute for involvement, perhaps. Yet I've seen many situations where complications arise because too few people were involved in what seemed to be a simple change – simple to the organization's leaders. It is important to ensure some involvement beyond the leadership team.

Businesses don't succeed when people waste cycles asking themselves who's on first and what's on second. When they are reacting with Lou Costello's frustration, the business isn't performing.

As a consultant, I've been pulled into situations that lacked up-front planning and essentially plunged into the middle of a mess. It is possible to regroup and get things moving mid-stream. But it is harder and slower -- positions may have become entrenched, credibility has suffered, and pace and commitment take time and attention to re-start.

As a member of an organization, I've at times thought I was on the outside of a key change, and been uncertain what I could to to help the business. I've watched the leaders make mistakes and felt so helpless.

Yet there are many great experiences that stand out in my mind, where these were done well. All of these great experiences started with careful planning and decisions, not only about the new game rules, but who's on first, and who's on second, third, etc. In these great experiences, the entire team understood and was involved in playing the new game, and we were free to focus on winning.

Changing Like A River: The Introduction, by Becky Spears

As I tested this river metaphor with colleagues, the most frequent question was whether it referred to:

• Navigating a river, or
• Being the river?

Either, and both! Like many who lived before us, we are living in ambiguous, uncertain times. Sometimes we are navigating the river, sometimes we are the river, and sometimes we are in the river.

That Change Word
The second question was about the word change in the title -- does this mean this blog is about change management?

Not exactly, but change has been the number one factor that business leaders have been grappling with throughout my career. Changes in the business environment due to technology advances, emergent competition, maturing industries, globalization, rise of knowledge workers -- the list is very long. Changes that resulted in a need to scale up or down, a need for a new strategy, a need to reorganize resources, a need for new leadership competencies -- this list is also very long. It is not a surprise that the oxymoron -- managing change -- has become so pervasive.

The times are more powerful than our brains.

Pandolfo Petrucci, Lord of Siena, Italy, ruled 1500-1512,

as quoted by Niccolo Machiavelli, Legations, 1494

as quoted by Eamonn Kelly, Powerful Times, 2005

As I've studied history, I've imagined how frightening it would have been to live through so many uncertain times. It seems to me that one huge difference today is the instantaneous global information flow that makes it possible to know almost anything at any time. Events that 100 years ago would take months for us to learn about are known within minutes, providing global opportunity and guidance for those who are listening and poised to act. Yet the information can be an overwhelming flood. Which way to turn? What tactics work best now? How to mobilize the people who are the crown jewels of most businesses today?

At different points in the river we may be swept downstream, stranded, ride the flow, or even select which eddies or currents will further our direction and let us surge ahead of others. There are those who try to dam or divert rivers, and there are rivers that break through their levees.

When you touch something, you change it.

When you change something, it changes you.

Octavia Butler

What does it mean to change like a river?
Rivers adapt to their environs and they change them as well. Similar to the business world, it's a complex system. As a river I may not be able to see around the bend, but there are noticeable indicators that the currents are changing. Identifying those indicators requires filtering, so I can see and focus on the most relevant and critical, and it requires adaptability -- how quickly can I respond?

For a business, changing like a river means that the business has built and developed adaptive human capital -- as individuals, leaders, teams, and organizations. That business then continually adapts to its environs, and changes the environs as they change their course.

The River as Community
This blog is a place for people who share a common interest in figuring out how to navigate through the changing human capital and organization development arenas today. These people range from those who are new to these topics, to those who are experts providing consultation, to those who are leaders employing some of these practices.

This blog will include relevant contributions from those who share this same journey down the river, sharing what they see, what they think, and what they've done. The perspectives about this river, that we're all in together, create this community.

Please feel free to post comments and argue with us. If you have a burning topic and a desire to create a post, contact one of the authors.

Formed from many streams
Sometimes a post will entertain, sometimes inform, sometimes an author will share a tool, sometimes an author will reveal a potential trend, sometimes one of us has read an interesting or informative book, and sometimes one of us will be standing on a soapbox about something we strongly believe.

Our blog is formed from many streams, and we hope you find value in navigating our river.

Thanks for listening, and if we trigger something you want to share, please join the discussion.

Becky Spears,
Editor and Contributor