On
Change Management
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW PRESS
Boston, Massachusetts
Find more digital content or join the discussion on www.hbr.org.
The web addresses referenced and linked in this book were live and correct at the time of the bookâs publication but may be subject to change.
Copyright 2011 Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation
All rights reserved
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), without the prior permission of the publisher. Requests for permission should be directed to
[email protected], or mailed to Permissions, Harvard Business School Publishing, 60 Harvard Way, Boston, Massachusetts 02163.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
HBRâs 10 must reads on change management.
p. cm.
Includes index.
ISBN 978-1-4221-5800-5 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Organizational change
2. Leadership I. Harvard business review II. Title: HBRâs ten must reads on change managementI II. Title: Harvard business reviewâs 10 must reads on change management.
HD58.8.H394 2010
658.4'06âdc22
2010031616
eISBN: 9781422172063
Contents
Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail
John P. Kotter
Change Through Persuasion
David A. Garvin and Michael A. Roberto
Leading Change When Business Is Good: An Interview with Samuel J. Palmisano
Paul Hemp and Thomas A. Stewart
Radical Change, the Quiet Way
Debra E. Meyerson
Tipping Point Leadership
W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne
A Survival Guide for Leaders
Ronald A. Heifetz and Marty Linsky
The Real Reason People Wonât Change
Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey
Cracking the Code of Change
Michael Beer and Nitin Nohria
The Hard Side of Change Management
Harold L. Sirkin, Perry Keenan, and Alan Jackson
Why Change Programs Donât Produce Change
Michael Beer, Russell A. Eisenstat, and Bert Spector
About the Contributors
Index
Leading Change
Why Transformation Efforts Fail. by John P. Kotter
OVER THE PAST DECADE, I have watched more than 100 companies try to remake themselves into significantly better competitors. They have included large organizations (Ford) and small ones (Landmark Communications), companies based in the United States (General Motors) and elsewhere (British Airways), corporations that were on their knees (Eastern Airlines), and companies that were earning good money (Bristol-Myers Squibb). These efforts have gone under many banners: total quality management, reengineering, rightsizing, restructuring, cultural change, and turnaround. But, in almost every case, the basic goal has been the same: to make fundamental changes in how business is conducted in order to help cope with a new, more challenging market environment.
A few of these corporate change efforts have been very successful. A few have been utter failures. Most fall somewhere in between, with a distinct tilt toward the lower end of the scale. The lessons that can be drawn are interesting and will probably be relevant to even more organizations in the increasingly competitive business environment of the coming decade.
The most general lesson to be learned from the more successful cases is that the change process goes through a series of phases that, in total, usually require a considerable length of time. Skipping steps creates only the illusion of speed and never produces a satisfying result. A second very general lesson is that critical mistakes in any of the phases can have a devastating impact, slowing momentum and negating hard-won gains. Perhaps because we have relatively little experience in renewing organizations, even very capable people often make at least one big error.
Most successful change efforts begin when some individuals or some groups start to look hard at a companyâs competitive situation, market position, technological trends, and financial performance. They focus on the potential revenue drop when an important patent expires, the five-year trend in declining margins in a core business, or an emerging market that everyone seems to be ignoring. They then find ways to communicate this information broadly and dramatically, especially with respect to crises, potential crises, or great opportunities that are very timely. This first step is essential because just getting a transformation program started requires the aggressive cooperation of many individuals. Without motivation, people wonât help, and the effort goes nowhere.
Compared with other steps in the change process, phase one can sound easy. It is not. Well over 50% of the companies I have watched fail in this first phase. What are the reasons for that failure? Sometimes executives underestimate how hard it can be to drive people out of their comfort zones. Sometimes they grossly overestimate how successful they have already been in increasing urgency. Sometimes they lack patience: âEnough with the preliminaries; letâs get on with it.â In many cases, executives become paralyzed by the downside possibilities. They worry that employees with seniority will become defensive, that morale will drop, that events will spin out of control, that short-term business results will be jeopardized, that the stock will sink, and that they will be blamed for creating a crisis.
A paralyzed senior management often comes from having too many managers and not enough leaders. Managementâs mandate is to minimize risk and to keep the current system operating. Change, by definition, requires creating a new system, which in turn always demands leadership. Phase one in a renewal process typically goes nowhere until enough real leaders are promoted or hired into senior-level jobs.
Transformations often begin, and begin well, when an organization has a new head who is a good leader and who sees the need for a major change. If the renewal target is the entire company, the CEO is key. If change is needed in a division, the division general manager is key. When these individuals are not new leaders, great leaders, or change champions, phase one can be a huge challenge.
Bad business results are both a blessing and a curse in the first phase. On the positive side, losing money does catch peopleâs attention. But it also gives less maneuvering room. With good business results, the opposite is true: Convincing people of the need for change is much harder, but you have more resources to help make changes.
But whether the starting point is good performance or bad, in the more successful cases I have witnessed, an individual or a group always facilitates a frank discussion of potentially unpleasant facts about new competition, shrinking margins, decreasing market share, flat earnings, a lack of revenue growth, or other relevant indices of a declining competitive position. Because there seems to be an almost universal human tendency to shoot the bearer of bad news, especially if the head of the organization is not a change champion, executives in these companies often rely on outsiders to bring unwanted information. Wall Street analysts, customers, and consultants can all be helpful in this regard. The purpose of all this activity, in the words of one former CEO of a large European company, is âto make the status quo seem more dangerous than launching into the unknown.â
In a few of the most successf...