In their article, "Change through persuasion," Garvin and Roberto set out steps that must be taken for change, in a manner that is rather similar to Kotter's article, except that they give only four steps instead of Kotter's eight. Basically their four steps are (1) prepare your organizations cultural "soil," (2) present your plan, (3) manage your employee's emotions during the execution of the plan, and (4) reinforce desired behavior once change starts happening. Generally, these steps follow the same pattern as Kotter's article. Garvin and Roberto mention the need to build urgency, and the importance of clearly communicating a vision, as well as the need to celebrate victories and maintain impetus past the initial phase. Perhaps something that is different about Garvin and Roberto's idea is that it emphasizes slightly more, the need to take care of people's emotions, help them grieve over losses that change brings, and mention, through their example, the need to create bottom up change.
The example that Garvin and Roberto use to illustrate their ideas is a case study that they conducted on Paul Levy's successful turnaround of Beth Isreal Deaconess Medical Center. This hospital was losing almost 60 million dollars a year, when Levy stepped in to change the situation, and within three years, the hospital was generating more than 35 million dollars. This article was published some ten years after Kotter's and given its scope, did not add as much to the conversation as might be hoped.
For one thing, the title uses the word "persuasion," but the authors do not dig very deeply into this concept. What exactly does it mean to persuade people? What battles must be fought? Who are the crucial people who must be persuaded? In ancient Greek rhetoric, the concept of persuasion was clearly delineated as winning one's audience over in three areas: ethically, logically, and emotionally. Even though Garvin and Roberto reference ways in which these objects are achieved, they don't focus on them or even set up a competing framework to analyze their example. The result is simplified version of Kotter's idea as it applied to one, successful case, which leaves me with further questions.
What is unique about the context and Levy as a leader that might have affected the way change took place? Why is it, that following these steps (which are basically a simplified version of Kotter's idea) was more successful here than other places? What is the unique role that persuasion takes in the process (as opposed to other factors)?
I also felt the authors did not do enough to explain the "bottom up" approach that Levy took. They simply mentioned that as part of his plan, he solicited suggestions from the employees and implemented some of them in his plan. The president at my institution did something similar, but then she seemed to disregard almost all of the ideas we gave her in favor of ideas that we really didn't understand the rationale for. Her change initiative stalled, so it appears that getting suggestions is not really sufficient, that the manner in which those suggestions are adopted and implemented is important also, but the authors don't really delve into these complexities, implying that it is enough to ask for suggestions and implement a few of them, when it fact, it may be very important to be strategic about which suggestions one decides to implement or that the rationale for which suggestions are implemented should be articulated.
I also wondered about the rationale used in conducting layoffs. How did Levy fire people without creating more distrust with those who remained? Gavin and Roberto mention an email acknowledging people's pain, but I know for myself that if I perceive any kind of favoritism, lack of trust, or inequity in the decision of who is asked to leave, an email would not make me trust the leadership. It's easy to use pretty words.
In fact, Gavin and Roberto's description of Levy's change initiative sounds similar to change efforts that I have witnessed that were not so successful, which leads me to believe that there was more to the story than the authors articulate.
One part I did think was insightful was that Levy made some pretty strong conditions to his employment before he ever took the job. Also, he openly confronted people who used passive-aggressive power plays and encouraged open disagreement. In both of these cases, Levy needed to operate from a place of strength and not worry about offending people. I think a lot of leaders slip up in this way because they want the job (without sufficiently considering what is required to make it successful) and/or are afraid of failing in their job if they offend the wrong people. I don't know if most leaders have the same kind of security and power that Levy had, however. How often do we find ourselves in that place where we can set our own terms of employment and still get hired, where offending the wrong person won't cost us our jobs or the success of our change initiative? Maybe one should not attempt change until one finds oneself in that position?
Social Justice Piece:
Like Kotter, Gavin and Roberto don't really address the role social justice takes in leading change. In fact, although they mention "bottom up" change, they don't really describe it in a way that seems very grass-roots to me. Many of the same questions I had regarding the Kotter article still persist. Does change have to be led by the person at the top (like Levy)? What role does race and gender have in Paul Levy's success (white male)? So often, change scholars seem to look at the bottom line as the measure of success ($35 million in revenue). Although I believe earnings and financial solvency are worthy goals to strive for, I also know what it means to be part of the group without power, to watch silently as someone up front confidently asserts his own understanding of an organization or of himself as a generous and open person, and in so doing, reveals his vast ignorance of what people at the bottom are thinking. In his drive down the middle, what visions did Levy potentially lose along the way? The authors never really ask. It's enough that the hospital started making money. There's a saying, "You have to break some eggs to make an omelette." Which eggs get broken? Is their breaking truly justified? I'm still waiting for the article that addresses these questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment