A daptive Learning
PTY LTD
Keynote Series – Creative Leadership and Cultural Change
The following material was presented as a keynote at the Liquid Learning Leadership & Change Conference,
16 & 17th March, Menzies Hotel, Sydney, 2005.
Abstract:
The role of the 21st century leader is to create change and ensure that their people are ‘change enabled’. The
creative leader sees opportunity in change. We can trace the behaviours of leaders and managers throughout
key periods in various industries to uncover those who demonstrated creative leadership - the ones who saw a
creative opportunity in contrast to those who ‘missed the boat’. In this session we look at examples of
entrepreneurship, creative leadership and change to highlight how leaders ‘build’ positive and effective
organisational cultures and the issues that they have to deal with in doing so. We also look at the key
challenges which lay ahead for Australian ‘change agents’.
On Change and Change Management
Let’s face it. “Change Management” is a hugely complex, ill-defined and frequently misunderstood subject.
When applied to organisations, it covers the whole range of magnitudes, from tweaks to quakes: from
changing a roster or work policy, to business process reengineering, strategy implementation, to the big daddy
of them all - cultural change. The rate and impact of change can be evolutionary (slow & smooth) to
revolutionary (rapid & disruptive). Above all, change is personal and contextual. What works in one place,
fails in another. Advice from the so-called experts is often contradictory and paradoxical (and this article is
no exception). What does appear to be true is, the bigger the change is, the more boundaries it crosses, the
more people it touches, the harder it is to do successfully.
My interest is in large scale organisational transformation and why we don’t seem to be able to get this right.
Organisational Change fails more often than not
“Ask almost anyone about the difficulty of creating major change in an organisation and the answer will be
‘very very tough’. Yet most of us still don’t get it. We use the right words, but down deep we underestimate the
enormity of the task.”
- John Kotter, Leading Change, 1996
If the anecdotal evidence of the last decade and a half is anything to go by, organisational change fails more
often than not.
I would love to give you chapter and verse to prove this assertion, but the fact is numerical studies of the
efficacy of change programmes are few and far between. (Then there’s the small matter of how do we
measure ‘change’ and what is ‘success’ anyway.) Not withstanding these concerns, here are some figures to
chew over:


Independent studies by Arthur D. Little and McKinsey & Co. in the early 1990’s found that out of
hundreds of corporate Total Quality Management programmes, two-thirds are halted due to failure to
deliver the desired results. i
In “The Search for a Simpler Way” (a report about the changing nature of work), the authors suggest that
while the way we work has change dramatically over the past decade or two, 60 to 80% of any possible
gains have not been realised.ii
Leadership & Change – © 2005 :
Adaptive Learning PTY LTD
(03) 9457 2215
www.adaptivelearning.com.au






Paul Strebel iii and James Champy (co-author of Reengineering the Corporation)iv both put failure of
organisations to renovate themselves at between 50 and 70%.
The Standish Group estimated that 80,000 (technological) projects were cancelled in North America, in
1995 alone. The report unconvincingly sought to describe these failures in purely Project Management
terms. v The two primary causes were lack of involvement from the right people and poor executive
management support.
Fortune Magazine reports that when it comes to mergers and acquisitions, 77% fail to recover the costs of
the subsequent integration effort. vi
Closer to home, Turner & Crawford (1992-98) report that from 243 cases of corporate change they
studied in Australia, 67% suffered one major set back, 47% two and 29% three. Yet in 88% of the cases
the executives felt the changes were necessary and correct, and 92% believed the changes were well
within the organisation’s capacity to achieve. In most cases the gap between expectation and success was
unacceptably high.
Over 30% of Australian executive leaders expect to be able to change organisations substantially within a
12 month timeframe. vii
John Kotterviii, the doyen of change, weighs in with the suggestion that over half of the one hundred top
management driven transformation efforts he studied failed in the initial phases and only a handful could
be rated ‘very successful’.
Why Change Fails to Deliver the Expected Results
“As difficult as the strategic challenges might be, they are acted on faster than the organisational
transformation needed to sustain them. And however hard it is to change the organisation, it is even
harder to change the mindset of senior managers. Hence today’s managers are trying to implement
third generation strategies through second generation organisations with first generation managers. “
- Bartlett & Ghoshal, Sloan Management Review, 2002
What conclusions can we derive from this data? That change doesn’t happen - that even after ‘change
programmes’ have been introduced, whatever drives success or performance remains unchanged? That people
do not like change, therefore they resist it? That change programmes are badly implemented? That executives
and senior managers expect too much from the changes they initiate? Or perhaps our beliefs about what
‘change’ is need a substantial overhaul. I suspect the real answer is all of the above, and more.
The obvious next question is: “If organisational change is so spectacularly unsuccessful - why is this so?” The
proposed answers to this are as varied as the studies done and the authors commenting on them. Change even small, technological change is complex. The parameters are many and workplaces differ greatly. It
seems that no two change programmes are the same.
What does appear to be true, is that the reasons given for
change failure depend more upon the mindset of the
commentator than they do the situation. (They reflect on
the individual beliefs about the process of change and
human nature.)
Broadly speaking there are two camps. One, I’ll label
“The Mechanics”, believe change can be engineered,
planned out and managed. Results can be measured and
the process can be controlled. (At least eight well
respected change experts publishing in the Harvard
Business Review in the 1990’s fell into this category.)
The other group, “The Organics”, think the opposite, that
change is a complex adaptive process, more to do with
what is going on in the head than the physical change at
the coal face. (Of course, you have every flavour in
between these two extremes.)
Leadership & Change – © 2005 :
Adaptive Learning PTY LTD
Change as a set of well defined events and as a
psychological transition between two mental states.
(03) 9457 2215
www.adaptivelearning.com.au
“Mechanics” reason this way… If change failed it was because either it was not managed properly, or the
people implementing the change were not suitably skilled. The solution in both cases is more knowledge,
better competencies and skills resulting in further training and consultants.
“Organics” try another tack: They argue, if you do not change people’s minds (feelings and beliefs) there is
no real change. Without deep, fundamental change to mindsets, the old habits and practices will reassert
themselves (once the heat is off, the supervisor stops looking or when a new fad takes attention away from the
current change - its back to behaviour-as-normal.)
It is possible that change interventions fall at both hurdles - poor project management of the physical change
and lack of leadership required to enable people to cope with the psychological transition which change
triggers.
Resistance to Change
“People do not resist change - they resist BEING changed.” - Dee Hock
I would challenge the common assumption that people fear change. One only needs to look about us to see
people accepting and driving change in all parts of their lives. The act of growing up is a study in change physically, mentally, emotionally and socially. Innovation is making things different and learning is changing
what we know and believe. Growth and decay - both mechanisms for change - are natural characteristics of
living creatures and humanity is the archetypal ‘complex adaptive system’. In short, two million years of
evolution has prepared man for change.
Still, resistance to change rates as the primary reason given by senior management for the failure of change in
their organisations.ix Actually, this should come as no surprise. Traditional hierarchical and bureaucratic
(“Mechanistic”) organisations were designed at the start of the industrial revolution x to produce a stable
output regardless of the quality of worker available (for the most, displaced peasant farmers). For two
centuries, these structures have been remarkably resilient, being based on close supervision, enforced rules
and policies, clear roles and responsibilities and rigid reporting lines. (They have also been remarkably underperforming and unable to get the best out of talented people.) At the heart of these organisation is a belief
(perhaps once true) that workers are unskilled, unknowledgeable and untrustworthy (cf. McGregor’s Theory
X xi) - this in turn supports cultural norms of ‘seek praise’ and ‘avoid blame’ which operate to generate
compliance and conformity. It then follows that mechanistic organisations are strong in inertia and risk
aversion and weak in initiative and devolved accountability. This legacy alone is enough to invoke reaction
from a workforce population patently different from that of 200 years ago.
The rank and file workers often have a different slant of the failure of instituted change. Many complain that
they were given too little support and direction, or were not consulted about how the change would impact
them. While they would admit to resisting changes they neither want nor can understand, the responses of
managers to their questioning and intransigence, makes matters worse. The more management uses command
and control mechanisms to ensure compliance, the greater is the passive and active resistance to change.
If we accept that each of the views expressed above (executive, worker, mechanistic change and organic
transition) hold some grain of truth, then this might explain why change is so difficult, but it also suggests a
sensible model for transformational change.
The Challenges of Organisational Transformation
“Losing an illusion makes you wiser than finding a truth.”
- Karl Ludwig Borne
Leadership & Change – © 2005 :
Adaptive Learning PTY LTD
(03) 9457 2215
www.adaptivelearning.com.au
It is clear that for the majority of companies to survive in the 21 st century, substantial organisational
transformation is required. There are however, no silver bullets, no six or seven-steps to cultural change or
even consistently reproducible frameworks. Change is messy, personal and contextual. The physical aspects
of a change must be well managed and the socio-psychological component (transition) be dealt with
sensitively and on its own timeframe. The challenge of transitional change must be engaged (personally and
organisationally) on three levels: Intellectually, Emotionally and Culturally - at the end of the transformation,
people will be required to think differently, feel differently and act differently.
A Model for Understanding Transformational Change
While shown step-wise and sequentially in the diagram and explanation below, change is never linear or
simple. “Challenges” merge, interact and reinforce. Two steps forward, one step back is the rule; change is a
dance. (What you thought previously embedded requires revisiting and the depth of learning and
understanding spirals from superficial to deep.) There is a world of difference between ‘knowing’ in the head,
‘really knowing’ in the heart and then doing in a social/cultural context. Self-delusion, denial and
misunderstanding dog every step of the way.
UNAWARE
Stimulus
Information
AWARENESS
knowledge
experiential
CHANGE
APPLICATION
UNDERSTANDING
ACCEPTANCE
emotional
Learning
(after D. Kolb, 1970 & T. Lee, 2001 )
Challenge 1: From vaguely unaware to understanding - winning the intellectual argument
Starting from the top of the organisation, it is required that leaders appreciate what in the world
(market, industry, environment) has fundamentally changed and that this inevitably will necessitate
organisational change. (The rate of change internally must match that of the external world for organisations
to survive and thrive.)
The need for change must be established at this point - the benefits, the logical reasons ‘why’.
Traditional managers will require ‘proof’ - data, market trends, expert opinion or an indication that others are
in the same boat.
At an intellectual level, some dialogue about what the future organisation will look like is required
(destination and pathway). Questions surrounding purpose, vision, identity, strategy, culture, leadership
capabilities and the effect of change on existing operations will all need to be broached. These discussions
must cascade down throughout the organisation and at each level, leaders need to recontextualise the
argument to bring meaning and understanding to others. “How will the proposed changes effect me?” will be
one of the first questions asked. Traditionalists will want to see a timeframe and plan - at least the outline of
the change programme to be initiated.
Sticking Points: Difficulty getting this discussion on the agenda (corporate myopia & heads-in-thesand syndrome), disbelief that the new situation is relevant to us, argument surrounding the validity of the
data and conclusions, complacency with existing position (the best time to change is when you don’t have to),
token agreement without further commitment. Difficulty in getting a bureaucracy to understand that change
and transition are different concepts and that the latter is an emergent phenomena that defies rigid ‘planning’.
Challenge 2: From understanding to accepting - winning the emotional argument
Winning people’s minds is one thing but to get their ‘hearts’ involved is an entirely different matter.
Intellectually (objectively) we can understand a need, but to get commitment and conviction, subjective faith
is required. From “it needs to be changed”, to “I will involve myself in this change”, is a large leap indeed.
In effect we must bridge the gap between change is happening “over there, somewhere, sometime, to
somebody else” to “it’s here, now and me”! The objective to subjective gap.
Leadership & Change – © 2005 :
Adaptive Learning PTY LTD
(03) 9457 2215
www.adaptivelearning.com.au
This stage also involves a developing belief in the capability of the organisation to change - “I, we can
change.” Early success of the changes being implemented will enhance this belief.
There is no substitute for open and honest discussion about our feelings and fears if we are to create
interdependency and a common belief system supporting shared mental models. The collective leadership
group will need to role model this by sharing their experiences, learning from each other and developing a
collective sense of the meaning of leadership in the new world.
Sticking Points: Difficulty in coming to grips that “I” (the leader) will have to change - not just the
systems, processes, technology, workers - other things and other people. That it requires personal conviction
to make this happen. That I will have to be involved - body & mind. Difficulty for managers to handle the
‘soft’ aspects of change and change transition.
Challenge 3: From accepting to doing - winning the socio-cultural argument
“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write,
but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” - Alvin Toffler
The final barrier is the “knowing-doing” gap in a social context. How do we introduce new behaviours and
remove ingrained habits, work patterns and coping mechanisms which have been successful in the past? Here
is where the rubber hits the road, where vision and intent to change becomes reality. Where strategy becomes
meaningful and concrete action.
The translation and implementation of big-picture concepts dreamed up in the boardroom and
modified through seemingly endless change committees and groups, must occur at ground level where the
work is actually done. This is never easy nor pretty. What is learnt here needs to be fed back into the learning
cycle as it brings new awareness, understanding and acceptance.
For leaders, the challenge is walking-the-talk on new values - proof to all that changes espoused are
actually taking place. Cultural schema may be directed from above, but they are held in the minds and work
practices (theories-in-use) of the people. Norming, re-norming, learning, unlearning, relearning, is an iterative
process.
Sticking Points: The clash between changing for the future and performance now (via the old ways
and behaviours). Walking the new talk while still under pressure to perform (most easily done using the old
methods that brought success). Lack of patience: one danger is that old ways will be re-established if the
“new-world” doesn’t give the expected results quickly enough. Expectation management is a key skill of
change leaders.
Overcoming Resistance to Change
“What is essential, and what is peripheral - is basic to all intelligent management of change. At the
core of all our resistance to change is the fear that we will lose something of ourselves, something
unrecoverable.” - Joe Flower
The model presented above also provides hints to Change Agents in overcoming the natural resistance to
change so prevalent in traditional organisations. Resistance is any force that slows or stops progressionxii and
people resist in response to a physical, perceived or anticipated change in their environment. Resistance is a
natural reaction to harmful change. The problem is, this autonomous response is triggered even if our
perceptions are askew or the anticipated result does not eventuate. There is always tension between change as
an opportunity (to learn and grow) and that possibility that a change might alter some intrinsic part of us on
which our identity rests. Resistance to change can therefore be seen as a survival instinct. This is true of both
individuals and collectively as organisations.
Intellectual (Cognitive) Resistance:
Common sources of intellectualised resistance include:
 Lack of clarity and explanation of the change (and especially how the change will effect me / my context)
 Lack of information and detail. (“I want to know more about what is going on so I feel secure & can make
decisions”)
 Lack of exposure to the people who know what is going on and who can interpret the change
Leadership & Change – © 2005 :
Adaptive Learning PTY LTD
(03) 9457 2215
www.adaptivelearning.com.au

Disagreement with what is being changed and how it is being changed. (Management not consulting selfperceived local expert knowledge)
If the source of resistance can be traced here, one solution is more participative dialogue and open, honest and
rich (face-to-face) communication about the pros and cons. The search is for relevant data and contextual
meaning.xiii
Emotional (Psychological) Resistance:
An environment of insecurity and being faced with an uncertain and unknown future can give rise to
emotional responses which are neither logical or apparently rational. Typical negative emotional responses to
change (or implied change) are:
Anxiety, Frustration, Lassitude, Fear, Loss, Anger, Hopelessness, Despair and Cynicism
Change leaders should be aware that these strong emotional responses originate in the Limbic system through
the gateway of the Amygdala. In this state, normal cognitive and physiological processes can be substantially
impaired and are not subject to conscious control. Intellectual arguments may fall on literally deaf ears.
If change is perceived as a threat, the body will prepare a fight/flight response, seen as inappropriate in a
corporate setting. On the other hand feelings of loss can be subtle but result in passive and active resistance to
change. People will not change if this results in a loss of identity or any component perceived to contribute to
their concept of “self”.
Such predictable losses include:
Loss of Familiar Territory, Structure, an Anticipated Future, Meaning and Clarity, Networks and
Resources, Direction, Security, Ownership, Control and Predictability, Power or Influence, Friends
and Colleagues, Knowledge and Expertise, and of Confidence xiv
If the emotional card is in play (as it will be by all but the most willing of change seekers), change
management must include appropriate steps and support mechanisms to aid employees through this transition.
(Something similar to the outreach programmes conducted by recruitment agencies for people made
redundant.) Most of all people need a safe, compassionate and understanding support network where they can
voice their feelings. Knowing others are going through the same thing helps. Particularly effective are senior
managers sincerely disclosing their stories and being open as to how they feel about the change on offer.
Cultural (Norms / Beliefs / Values) Resistance:
Cultural change is by definition difficult because the existing norms and values are being challenged. The
older the belief and the more consistently it is held, the more difficult it is to replace. Behaviours can be
changed temporarily but will eventually return to align to the underlying schema. Culture is “how we do
things around here”. Replacement of values, schema and beliefs requires considerable effort by culturecreatives (positional managers, respected leaders and influencers) in meticulously rewarding the desired
behaviours, coaching, providing feedback and role-modelling the same. It is vitally important for people to see
that the executive is actively engaged in the change (walking-the-talk).
It needs to be understood that if the proposed changes are perceived to impact adversely on long-held cultural
values (especially those dealing with customer service, quality and relationships) then a (passive) revolt is
possible. Changes which threaten to alter the “who is IN and who is OUT” rules of the social group will also
be resisted on mass, if these are seen to disenfranchise significant members of the corporate community.
Another source of employee resistance might be the entrenched beliefs about ‘what management is and stands
for’. If the prevailing mental model of ‘them’ (the bosses) is negative, then people may resist top-down
change on the grounds on not wanting to be dictated to or controlled. People not only respond to what was
said, but to who said it and how it was said. (This is especially valid in the Australian corporate context as
evidence indicates a somewhat jaundiced view of management by staff xv).
Finally, in low trust environments the intentions of management are up for interpretation. If the company has
had a poor record of change (downsizing, job degradation, low consultation) people will naturally think the
worst.
Leadership & Change – © 2005 :
Adaptive Learning PTY LTD
(03) 9457 2215
www.adaptivelearning.com.au
Change & Transition Timeframes
A difficult concept for change leaders to accept, especially
those coming from a managerial or project management
background, is that transition to change is personal and occurs
on a time frame essentially independent to that of the
‘programmed change’. Depending on the nature of the reaction
to change, individuals will transition rapidly, slowly or not at
all.
Bridge’s’ “Marathon Effect” diagram explains why different
sections of the workplace see change differently. The model
proposes that people transition from a period of ‘ending’
(leaving behind the old), through the neutral zone (no mans
land), to the ‘new’ beginning where the change has been accepted. How this transition occurs and how long
people remain in each phase is governed by their ‘engagement’ in the change (their willingness). Clearly, the
architects of the change are fully engaged. Their focus from the start is on the future and the new beginning
they are creating. This is in stark contrast to the low-engagement worker who feels rail-roaded by the change
and may spent inordinate amounts of time in the “ending” and “transitional” states
The Challenge of Initiating Change
Some of the first questions asked when initiating change are: Where are we now? Where do we want to go
(what is our purpose, aspiration and vision)? And how quickly must we achieve this? The answer to these
questions then informs the nature of the change programme to be embarked upon. Will incremental change
(continuous improvement) suffice or will we need mindset-altering, transformational change.
The table below essentially defines the sort of change your organisation requires to achieve strategic goals.
The rule of thumb is that moderate improvement within the columns can be honed through continuous
improvement as long as the basic strategic intent is not greatly altered. For example, to achieve Worlds Best
Practice in an existing performance culture the focus would be on increased teamwork, a disciplined approach
to Key Performance Indicators, measurement and objectives. The introduction of performance appraisal
systems, performance-based pay liked to stretch goals and a balanced scorecard approach would all be
appropriate. Effectiveness and efficiency however have their limits in a performance culture and in these days
of extreme turbulence, something more is required.
The move from a performance culture to a learning or relational one, requires a large paradigm shift. Not only
is the strategic focus substantially different, but the cultural norms are incompatible. The “memes”
(transmittable fundamental idea and principles) supporting the shaded area below owe their allegiance to the
Industrial Revolution while those on the right belong in the so-called Knowledge Era or Information Age.
Essentially, we have a difference between Management (maintaining slow steady growth) with
directive/monitoring styles and Leadership which is more inspirational and visionary. Transformational
change (which requires a change in the mental processes and behaviours of senior managers) is beyond the
scope of traditional “Change Management” and requires a sensitive treatment of “transition” as discussed
earlier.
To initiate transformational change of this magnitude requires leaders who can remove the intellectual,
emotional and cultural barriers and allow the natural, organic processes (inherent in complex adaptive
systems) take place.
“If you expect the people who work for you to change, then you must also. And it has to be real change and
not just rhetoric. It’s about changing the nature of the organisation, and that can only happen if the person at
the top changes” - Gordon Cairnes (CEO Lion Nathan) xvi
Leadership & Change – © 2005 :
Adaptive Learning PTY LTD
(03) 9457 2215
www.adaptivelearning.com.au
Decade:
Turbulence :
< 1970’s
Constant
1980’s
Slow expansion
Management:
Directive,
Controlling
commanding
Political
Administrative
Performance
Culture :
Comfortable
Challenging
Environment:
Static, Local
More of the Better
Strategy :
Same
Rules
Goals
Focus :
Compliance
Achievement
Value :
bureaucratic,
Organisational Mechanistic,
Model
& hierarchical.
Material (technology, training,
Memes:
skills, continuous improvement,
process, structure, strategy) change
focus
Style:
1990’s
Rapid
change
Leadership :
Aspirational
Minds
&
hearts
Learning
Competitive
1990’s
Acceleration
2000’s >
Discontinuous
Inspirational,
Belief, Can
do mindset
Relational
Co-operative
Smarter
Closer
Visionary
Thinking & doing,
Conviction
Distinctive
Complex
Uncertain, Global
Different
Knowledge
Connections Ideas
Innovation
Service
Imagination
Organic, living, adaptive, flexible, participative,
holistic, systemic, integral.
Intangibles (culture, values, personal and
organisational learning, relationships, transition)
change focus.
(after Ansoff 1998, and Lee 2002 )
The bottom line: Transformation change is top-down. It requires the concerted and active efforts of all leaders
within the organisation to work together to be successful. The failures of the past have been failures of
leadership to be personally involved and realise the magnitude of the effort in both change and transition.
The final frontier is that of the mind:
If you can change your mind, you can change anything !
To be continued….
In part II:
The challenge of sustained change
Creative Leaders building change enabled organisations
Tips for Change Agents
Dr. Ian Metcalfe - Adaptive Learning PTY LTD
Melbourne, March, 2005
www.adaptivelearning.com.au
(03) 9457 2215 0439 902 215
Sources and further reading:
Marcus Buckingham & Curt Coffman (The Gallup Organisation), “First, Break All the Rules”, Simon & Schuster, 1999
Marcus Buckinham & Donald O. Clifton, "Now, Discover Your Strengths", Free Press, 2001
James C. Collins & Jerry L. Porras, "Built to Last - Successful habits of Visionary Companies", 3rd Ed., Random House,
1998
James C. Collins, “From Good to Great - Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't”, HarperBusiness,
October, 2001
Stan Davis & Christopher Meyer (Ernst & Young Center for Business Innovation), “Blur - the speed of change in the
connected economy”, Capstone, 1998
Daniel Denison, Toward a Theory of Organisational Culture and Effectiveness, Organisation Science, Vol.6, No.2, 1995
Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis & Annie McKee, “The New Leaders - Transforming the Art of Leadership into the
Science of Results”, Little Brown, 2002H. Igor Ansoff, “The New Corporate Strategy”, Wiley and Sons, N.Y., 1988
Andy Law, “Open Minds - 21st Century Business Lessons and Innovations from St. Luke’s”, Texere, 2001
Edgar H. Schein, “Organisational Culture and Leadership”, 2nd Ed., Jossey-Bass, 1997
Peter M. Senge, “The Fifth Discipline - The Art & Practice of The Learning Organisation”, Random House, 1990
Peter M. Senge et al, "The Dance of Change: The Challenge of Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organisations - A fifth
discipline resource book", 2000
Leadership & Change – © 2005 :
Adaptive Learning PTY LTD
(03) 9457 2215
www.adaptivelearning.com.au
Charles Handy, “The Age of Unreason”
John P. Kotter, “Leading Change”, Harvard Business School Press, 1996
John P. Kotter and James L. Heskett, “Corporate Culture and Performance”, Free Press, N.Y., 1992
Dee Hock, “Birth of the Chaordic Age”, Berrett-Koehler, 1999
William Bridges, "Jobshift" - http://webcom.com/quantera/llbridges.htm 2000
William Bridges, Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change, Perseus Books Group 1991
William Bridges and Susan Mitchell “Leading Transition: A New Model for Change”, Leader to leader No. 16 Spring
2000
Nancy J. Barger & Linda K. Kirby “The Challenge of Change in Organisations”,Davies-Black Publishing, Palo Alto,
1995
Chris Argyris, Increasing Leadership Effectiveness. New York: Wiley. 1976).
Chris Argyris, On Organizational Learning. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. 1993).
Chris Argyris and D. Schon Theory in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1974.
Chris Argyris, “Reasoning, Learning and Action. Individual and Organizational”, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. . (1982).
Dennis Turner & Michael Crawford), "Change Power", Business & Professional Publishing, 1997
James Champy, “Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution.”
Margaret J. Wheatley, "Leadership and the New Science", 2 nd Edition, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1999 (also see "A
Simpler Way", with Myron Kellner-Rogers)
Appendix: Challenges for Creative Leaders / Change Agents in the 21st Century
The following are only a small collection of challenges facing (Australian) organisations and leaders today:
Building Leadership Capability - Increasing overall leadership maturity:
We do not have to return to the Karpin report (1995) to see that leadership capabilities in Australia can be improved. The
continuing “Eye on Australia” surveyxvii as reported in the April 22nd-28th, 2004 issue of Business Review Weekly
indicates quite strongly that “corporate Australia is severely alienating consumers and employees” and that “employees do
not trust the companies they work for” seeing them as greedy, dishonest, boring and faceless. Consumers are asking for
more commitment to truth & honesty to be shown by businesses and are ‘keyed’ to spot insincerity and falsehoods.
Organisations will be penalised for pretending to be what they are not.
Well over 85% of people surveyed said that high performing and successful Australian businesses should be innovative, a
good place for employees to work and show demonstrable community involvement. Behind these indicative “straws in the
wind” is a basic need for employees to feel valued for their innate creativity and talents, to enjoy the workplace
experience and to be part of something bigger than themselves. There is a need to combat the prevailing and reoccurring
mental image that workers are only insignificant and replaceable cogs in a huge machine.
With these employee and customer attitudes it is unlikely that the managers of Australian companies will have the trust,
respect and goodwill to generate substantial cultural change. It’s a catch-22 situation. Before change is possible, the
attitudes need to alter which can only come from a demonstrable change in mindset and behaviour from the leadership
group.
The Fallacy of “Technology or Structure or Process, Drives Change”:
While systems, frameworks, models, processes, policies and structures, by necessity must be aligned to the cultural values
and norms, it is a complete myth that these things in themselves drive change. Technology, for example, is an accelerator
(or a brake) but not the pedal itself. Training cannot be used as a substitute for ‘learning’ and despite what people say
(“what gets measured gets done”, “you can’t manage what you can’t measure”), measurements are highly overrated in
their ability to make a difference to important change. Despite the continued failure of reworking the Organisational Chart
as a driver of Organisational Change, this methodology seems to be the most prevalent and the first thing managers try.
Unless the underlying principles behind the structure form are altered, this action is simply rearranging the deck chairs
on the Titanic.
More Change Myths
- People undergoing change upon change get “all-changed-out”. Anecdotal evidence suggests that people get used to
the baseline rate of change which exists in the environment - given that the change has personal meaning and ‘real’
basis for existing. Change for change sake and disconnected change will put people under stress and lead to resistance
to further change.
- Incremental change will lead slowly but surely to transformational change. I have no evidence to suggest a steady as
she goes, step by step approach to transformational change works. That doesn’t mean however that every thing a
change agent does is big and bold. Quite the contrary, building momentum is the name of the game, introducing new
Leadership & Change – © 2005 :
Adaptive Learning PTY LTD
(03) 9457 2215
www.adaptivelearning.com.au
-
-
memes to disrupt the status quote and trying lots of things and keeping what works, are part of the change agent
toolkit. Malcolm Gladwell’s book, the tipping point, graphically illustrates that we never know where the next big
change, new fad or epidemic will come from.
You have to destroy the old ways, burn the bridges and give people no way to return (Cortez, burn the boats).
Remember that people have invested many years of psychic income in the way they work - burning that is tantamount
to saying their baby is ugly and those were wasted years. Better to acknowledge the past efforts and set people the
task of taking the best material into the future with them.
Silver bullets of any description work. This is a complete ‘furphy’. The killer ap and out-of-the-box solutions to
complex change simply do not work.
Aligning organisational “systems” to organisational values:
If genuine, enacted, values are key to building cultures and doing the right thing, then internal ‘systems’ (processes,
policies, structures, reward & recognition schemes, performance reviews and so on) must also be altered to align to these
values. Anything less than complete synchronisation gives employees reason to doubt the veracity of leadership
commitment to these values.
The top-down challenge for senior leaders is to ensure that what is being paid attention to, what is seen as being
important, is what you need it to be. Too many organisation espouse the values of respect, teamwork, service, quality and
innovation… but allow workplace processes and interactions to flourish which are based on ‘knowledge for power’,
mateship, boasting, status & position drivers, individual gain and technology for technology’s sake. How often are mixed
messages sent, such as the common practice of encouraging ‘teamwork’ but condoning individual performance rewards?
Engaging the workforce:
“The major challenge for companies over the next twenty years will be the effective development of human assets. That’s
not about organisational development. It’s about psychology. About getting one more individual to be more productive,
more focused, more fulfilled than he or she was yesterday.” (Marcus Buckingham, 2001)
Biggest performance challenge of all, and at the core of cultural change is the removal of the pessimism, cynicism and
feelings of helplessness worker have within traditional organisations. There is a real need to allow the true capabilities of
people to shine. This requires strong, inspiring and committed leadership focused on building robust, positive and
enabling cultures which continually develop people. Leaders will have to become more personal and inspire their people,
one by one, day by day, to be more fulfilled, more confident in their abilities and encouraged to reach new levels of
performance.
Knowing what is sacred (the purpose - why the company exists) and what can be changed (methods, structures, policies the how), appears to be a key element in achieving this. Peer coaching of appropriate behaviours is another entry point
hinting at a more distributed definition of leadership.
Here are some questions to ponder:
 If you cannot sell your product or service to your own employees, where does this leave you?
 What does it mean when your own employees don’t agree with where you are going?
 If you can’t afford to pander to your employees - can you afford not to?
Knowing when and when not, what and what not, to change:
Also known as the Innovator’s Dilemma. The best time to change is when you’re on top and can, but this involves risk.
Wait too long and inertia sets in - you may lose the capability to shift gears. (Change too slowly or too late and you will
die a death by ‘missed opportunity”, change too quickly or too soon and you risk a death by “mis-adventure”.)
The real issue for organisations is being able to balance the numerous and apparently paradoxical “tensions” which exist:
 Knowing what needs to be stable and what must change (most organisations get this wrong)
 How much effort to spend on internal and external focuses (you must of course do both)
 How to maintain operating capability (which drives current performance) while putting aside resources to
build the future (the ability to change in the future, stay adaptive and flexible, must be maintained)
 How to keep up with or ahead of the market while creating your own distinctive culture and competitive
advantage (do you play by the market’s rules or create your own ‘game’)
This later point might be seen as redefining what we mean by competition. Strategist James Moore proposes that we need
to end the essentially American obsession with competition and see the global economy as a non-zero-sum market place.
Business is best played as a team game and the definition of team is getting bigger and broader every day.
Leadership & Change – © 2005 :
Adaptive Learning PTY LTD
(03) 9457 2215
www.adaptivelearning.com.au
Frequently Asked Questions

“How much organisational change is enough change ?”
The generic answer to this is - the rate of change within the organisation should conservatively match the rate of
change in your external marketplace (customers, competitors, regulators, suppliers). At current global rates of change,
a conservative strategy would aim to be in 1st or 2nd place in your niche. The more appetite you have for risk, the
more innovative you wish to be, the more change - over and above the average - your strategy would take you.
One caveat to this is - your internal rate of change must always be sufficient to maintain ‘change capability’ within
your organisation. (For example turnover rates below 5% per annum are probably a death knell to your organisation.)
 “Does incremental change (continuous improvement / world’s best practice) ever work. The answer is probably yes,
but only in certain circumstances (which haven’t existed for 20 years).
 “Can you design an organisational culture?”
This is a touchy point - You certainly can try to design and implement a culture by modifying the underlying schema
(cultural values and rules), but people being as they are (perverse, fickle, generous - human) what you end up with is some
emergent combination of old, new and left-field. People hold the schema in their heads so anything can happen.
About the Author
Dr. Ian Metcalfe Director, Adaptive Learning PTY LTD & Minds At Work
Ian is recognised as a leading thinker in the areas of Creative Leadership, Cultural Renewal and
Organisational Change. He is a talented academic, an accomplished project leader in the finance and
insurance industries, and a senior manager with extensive experience with the implementation of
institutional change and organisational learning and development. Ian is also a member of a network
of working thinkers known as Minds at Work who provide advice, media commentary, workshop
facilitation and keynote speeches on creativity, innovation, problem solving and cultural change to
local and international organisations.
As Director and Principal Business Consultant at Adaptive Learning, Ian has worked for many years
as a network leader, instructional workshop designer, facilitator, coach, critical friend and
organisational change agent. Ian specializes in organisational learning and personal growth through
the practical and flexible application of experiential and action learning concepts.
Ian can be contacted at: [email protected] +61 (0)439 902 215, (03) 9457 2215
Open Publication Policy – Public Domain
We strongly believe that information that could benefit humanity, society and the environment should
be freely shared and distributed. Please feel free to use the material contained in this document in the
spirit it is presented.
© 2005, copyright Adaptive Learning PTY LTD
Leadership & Change – © 2005 :
Adaptive Learning PTY LTD
(03) 9457 2215
www.adaptivelearning.com.au
Footnotes:
Cf: “The Dance of Change”, Senge et al, pg 6. [Quoting “The Economist”, 18 th April issue, 1992]
“Changing how we work - the search for a simpler way.”, Power user’s edition, The Jensen Group & Northern Illinois
College of Business, 1992-1997, www.simplerwork.com
iii
Paul Strebel, “Why do employees resist change?”, Harvard Business Review May/June, 1996, pgs: 86-92
(Also: 57% of quality-improvement efforts fail to make satisfactory progress - Linda Moran, Jerry Hogeveen, Jan
Latham, and Darlene Russ-Eft. “Winning Competitive Advantage”, Zenger Miller, 1994.)
iv
James Champy, “Reengineering: A Light That Failed.”, Across the Board, Volume 32 #3, March, 1995, pgs 27-31.
Michael Hammer and James Champy (An Interview with Hal Lancaster). "Reengineering Authors Reconsider
Reengineering.", The Wall Street Journal. January 17, 1995. See also:
http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/icenter/learn/reengconcept.htm
v
The Standish Group “Chaos Report”, 1995. www.standishgroup.com [31% of projects are cancelled before they start.
Over 50% will cost twice as much as estimated. Billions of dollars are lost in failures, over-runs and lost opportunity
costs.]
also: 4 Jim Johnson, "Chaos: The Dollar Drain of IT Failures.", Application Development Trends. January, 1995.
vi
Anne Fisher, "How to Make a Merger Work", Fortune magazine, January 24, 1994.
vii
Terry Lee & Associates, Mt. Elisa Business School Executive Leadership Programme, 1999-2004
viii
John P. Kotter, “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail.”, HBR, March/April, 1995, pg59
ix
William Schiemann founder and President of Metrus Consulting Group in "Why Change Fails - A survey of Fortune
500 executives" Across the Board. April, 1992. Schiemann also suggests that failure by the executive leadership to decide
on what strategy or direction is also a contributing factor.
Rick Maurer (http://www.beyondresistance.com/htm/popups/why.html) cites a Deloitte Consulting survey where 80% of
Chief Information Officers surveyed said “that resistance was the main reason why technology projects failed. Not lack of
skill or resources, but that soft touchy-feely human reaction of resistance”.
x
The industrial bosses of the 19th C borrowed from the approach of Fredrick the Great in building peasant armies, which
in turn originated in the brutal feudal systems of Europe and Great Britain.
xi
“The average man is by nature indolent - he works as little as possible. He lacks ambition, dislikes responsibility and
prefers to be led. He is inherently self-centered, indifferent to organisational needs and is by nature resistant to change.
He is gullible, not very bright, the ready dupe of the charlatan and the demagogue.” - Douglas McGregor, “The Human
Side of Enterprise”, McGraw-Hill, 1960
xii
Resistance may appear in many forms such as: agreement without action, work-to-rule, malicious compliance, in-yourface arguments and even sabotage.
xiii
Note: Because the people running the intervention are “in a different (head) space” it is often assumed that people want
more information - that the source of uneasiness or resistance is intellectual. This results in more e-mails, brochures,
power-point displays, butcher’s paper orgies and planning sessions. These take time and focus away from the softer
“touchy-feely” and hidden cultural issues which are more likely to be a problem.
xiv
Refer to “The Challenge of Change in Organisations” for details.
xv
See Simon Lloyd, “Eye on Australia: Greedy, Dishonest, Boring, Faceless”, Business Review Weekly April 22 nd, 2004
xvi
C. Fox, “The Born Again CEO”, Australian Financial Review, Boss Magazine, May 2003, pg 40.
i
ii
Leadership & Change – © 2005 :
Adaptive Learning PTY LTD
(03) 9457 2215
www.adaptivelearning.com.au