Don't Rebuild the Chrysler Building
by Rick Brenner
When we undertake change, we're usually surprised at the effort and cost required. Much of this effort and cost is necessary because of the nature of the processes we're changing. What can we do differently to make change easier in the future?
In 1929, the automotive industry was as hot as the Internet was in the 90's. The people who led the major companies then were as well known as Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates are today. One of them was Walter Chrysler, who wanted to build the tallest building in the world, to be named — of course — the Chrysler Building. He found himself in a race with The Bank of Manhattan Trust Company, and he won.
The Chrysler Building, at a respectable height of 1,046 feet, won't stand forever. But nobody has ever deconstructed a skyscraper that tall, and we don't have any idea how to do it.
One thing is certain: the cost will be (ahem) sky-high. Since we've given so little thought to minimizing "deconstruction" cost, we now have an installed base of buildings that are stable and safe, but expensive to demolish.
So it is with organizational processes. We've designed them to effect management control — to ensure that people follow procedures and to enable management to control cost and quality. But they weren't designed for change, and that's one reason why change is so difficult.
How do organizational processes defend themselves against change? Here are three things to do to design processes that are easier to change.
- Break the performance connection
- We often tie performance evaluation to proficiency in organizational processes, which ties career advancement — and self-esteem — to a detailed knowledge of organizational processes. Once self-esteem is tied to the status quo, changing the status quo can create a threat to self-esteem. No wonder we have trouble.
- Tie performance to the ability to adapt to changing processes, rather than to skill in following processes of long standing. Reward flexibility, not compliance.
- Keep interfaces compact
Most organizational processes
weren't designed for change,
and that's one reason
why change is so difficult
- Processes have interfaces consisting of forms, contacts, documentation, and so on. To use a process, people interact with it through its interface. When the interface is complex and diffuse, and linked to many other processes, we have more difficulty changing the process.
- Make process interfaces compact. To avoid reconfiguring the rest of the company when you change a process, keep as much of the process as possible behind the interface.
- Eliminate gatekeepers
- A gatekeeper is someone whose signature you need. For example, most organizations require a supervisor's signature for certain purchases, or for time cards. Some gatekeepers exist because of legal requirements, but many are created for political reasons. Since being a gatekeeper is often a badge of status, gatekeepers tend to resist attempts the change the processes they gate-keep.
- Avoid creating new gatekeepers. Empower staff to simply sign the forms themselves.
Once you master these techniques, you can move on to a bigger project — to learning how not to rebuild the Empire State Building. Top Next Issue
For more information about the Chrysler Building, visit the PBS Web site.
Is your organization embroiled in Change? Are you managing a change effort that faces rampant cynicism, passive non-cooperation, or maybe even outright revolt? Read 101 Tips for Managing Change to learn how to survive, how to plan and how to execute change efforts to inspire real, passionate support. Order Now!
Your comments are welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? Send me your comments by email
, or by Web form
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful,
and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend
Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive
of past issues. Subscribe for free.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout,
as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in,
anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Organizational Change
- Now We're in Chaos
- Among models of Change, the Satir Change Model has been especially useful for me. It describes how people and systems respond to change, and handles well situations like the one that affected us all on September Eleventh.
- Beyond WIIFM
- Probably the most widely used tactic of persuasion, "What's In It For Me," or WIIFM, can be toxic to an organization. There's a much healthier approach that provides a competitive advantage to organizations that use it.
- The True Costs of Cost-Cutting
- The metaphor "trimming the fat" rests on the belief that some parts of the organization are expendable, and we can remove them with little impact on the remainder. Ah, if only things actually worked that way...
- Kinds of Organizational Authority: the Formal
- A clear understanding of Power, Authority, and Influence depends on familiarity with the kinds of authority found in organizations. Here's Part I of a little catalog of authority classes.
- Good Change, Bad Change: Part II
- When we distinguish good change from bad, we often get it wrong: we favor things that would harm us, and shun things that would help. When we do get it wrong, we're sometimes misled by social factors.
See also Organizational Change for more related articles.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates.
Contact me for details at rbrenner@ChacoCanyon.com
or (617) 491-6289, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout
are available in six ebooks:
Reprinting this article
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline?
Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Race to the South Pole: Ten Lessons for Project Managers
- On 14 December 1911, four men led by Roald Amundsen reached the South Pole. Thirty-five days later, Robert F. Scott and four others followed. Amundsen had won the race to the pole. Amundsen's party returned to base on 26 January 1912. Scott's party perished. As historical drama, why this happened is interesting enough, but to project managers, the story is fascinating. Lessons abound. Read more about this program. Here's an upcoming date for this program:
- The Race to the South Pole: The Power of Agile Development
- On 14 December 1911, four men led by Roald Amundsen reached the South Pole. Thirty-five days later, Robert F. Scott and four others followed. Amundsen had won the race to the pole. Amundsen's party returned to base on 26 January 1912. Scott's party perished. As historical drama, why this happened is interesting enough. Lessons abound. Among the more important lessons are those that demonstrate the power of the agile approach to project management and product development. Read more about this program. Here's an upcoming date for this program:
- The Politics of Meetings for People Who Hate Politics
- There's a lot more to running an effective meeting than having the right room, the right equipment, and the right people. With meetings, the whole really is more than the sum of its parts. How the parts interact with each other and with external elements is as important as the parts themselves. And those interactions are the essence of politics for meetings. This program explores techniques for leading meetings that are based on understanding political interactions, and using that knowledge effectively to meet organizational goals. Read more about this program. Here's an upcoming date for this program:
- TBD, Mansfield, MA: August 21, Regional Event, PMI MassBay, PMI Central Mass, Ocean State PMI, PMI Keene, PMI Southern New England.