Sirkin, Keenan, and Jackson explain their DICE Theory. They begin their article by noting all of the various ways that change can be approached and the fact that no one has found the final answer. Then they offer the final answer. They say that "[c]ompanies overemphasize the soft side of change.... [and] though these elements are critical for success, change projects can't get off the ground unless companies address the harder elements first." What is interesting to me about this argument is that it just seems to be a matter of shifting one's weight from one foot to the other: "All right: we've determined that change needs both soft and hard elements. Now let's spend all of our time discussing the hard elements." The next article will just argue the opposite: "companies tend to ignore the soft side..." and so on and so forth.
Having made that complaint, I do think the authors describe a very systematic process to examine a change initiative and if the company or system is open to such systematic scrutiny, their process must be very valuable. Their statement that their system reduced a twelve hour discussion into a 2 hour goal oriented analysis was especially compelling to me. Does every leadership have the capacity to focus like that? If they can't focus like that, does that mean their change initiative is doomed? Apparently, the DICE Theory had been developed and tested by the authors in their consulting company, which reminds me that Theory E change tends to use outside consulting more than Theory O change. Is it possible that this consulting agency is preaching to the crowd regarding the classic Theory E reasons for change? Again, I think their DICE Theory is very orderly, coherent, and effective within its sphere. It's just been my life experience that this sort of effectiveness is made possible by the limits of the sphere.
Being Restorative by strength, and therefore problem-oriented, I wish the authors had explained more clearly the limitations of their own system. They began their article by saying there was no final answer regarding the best way to affect change. Did they believe differently by the time they finish the article or did they just mean there was no final answer until now? The thing is, they've been using this theory for a while, so if they do think it is the final answer, they were a little disingenuous there at the beginning. I am looking for the final answer, and so there's a need to stamp out all of the problems, not just the one directly in front of us.
Social Justice
This article had very little to say about diversity and social justice. I think that is very consistent with the difference between "hard" and "soft" and Theory E and Theory O. These bottom line approaches generally don't address issues of power difference or diversity. For what it is worth, I don't think every article necessarily has to address these "soft" issues, but the article would have been more complete if the authors had addressed their theory in light of them, even briefly. The reason they didn't, one might suppose, could be because "[c]ompanies overemphasize the soft side of change." I don't know if that's really true. In all, I think HBR tends to focus more on the hard elements. Interestingly, the DICE Theory says you can't create change without buy-in from upper management which sort of implies that bottom up change is to some extent impossible. I wonder if that is true?
For a while now, I have been thinking of Jesus as an agent of change. He began a revolution, and I don't think he followed any of these models that HBR authors propose. Since Jesus came to earth to be the image of God for us, his version of being a change agent seems like it should trump all the rest. I wonder if anyone has written about that? Maybe after I finish this book, I will try to find one that addresses self-sacrificial change. Jesus said, "Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone." In what ways did Jesus revolutionize the world through his sacrifice? Another theme that is probably of a more "soft" nature that had not been discussed by any of these articles is the role that trust has in change. I see it all around me: the distrust that leads to lack of communication and under utilized resources. The distrust that leads to the undermining of a leader and a vision. That is another area of change that I would like to explore more.
No comments:
Post a Comment