NICK WRIGHT
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
  • Testimonials
  • Articles
    • Organisations and leadership
    • Learning and development
    • Coaching and counselling
  • Blog
  • e-Resources
  • News
  • Contact
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
  • Testimonials
  • Articles
    • Organisations and leadership
    • Learning and development
    • Coaching and counselling
  • Blog
  • e-Resources
  • News
  • Contact

Theory of change

9/2/2013

115 Comments

 
​What’s your theory of change? What issues are you trying to address? What creates and sustains those issues? What kind of interventions and when are most likely to prove successful? What would success look and feel like, and for whom? What is your overall goal? These are some of the questions we looked at on a Theory of Change workshop I took part in yesterday. Theories of change are becoming increasingly commonplace in the third sector, paralleling e.g. strategy maps in other sectors. There are a number of reasons for this. Charities and NGOs are under increasing scrutiny from supporters and funders to demonstrate how their resources are being used to achieve optimal impact. This has created a whole industry in impact evaluation.

The third sector is maturing too. No longer driven into action by empathy or altruistic instinct alone, organisations in this sector  have more experience, more evidence of what works and what doesn’t and more analysis and understanding of why. The issues have turned out to be more complex than some had originally imagined, making significant and sustained progress challenging. Against this backdrop, a theory of change can prove valuable. It aims to clarify goals and outcomes and to work back to activities and other factors that will enable the outcomes to be achieved. In articulating these things clearly and succinctly (often in simple graphic flowchart form), underlying assumptions and causal links can be surfaced, explained and tested.

At heart, a theory of change answers questions such as ‘What are we trying to achieve?’, ‘What is necessary for the goal to be achieved?’ and ‘What’s the rationale behind our intervention strategy?’ In doing so, it makes the organisation’s focus, operations and use of resources transparent, accountable and more open to challenge and improvement as new research and evidence emerges. I find myself particularly drawn to the critical-reflective aspects. For instance, one NGO I worked with conducted a  fundamental strategy review starting with these same principles, asking questions such as, ‘Why are people poor?, ‘What causes and sustains poverty?’, ‘What interventions make the greatest difference?’, ‘What is our optimal contribution?’

One of the interesting challenges for a third sector organisation is whose voice is represented in framing and answering such questions, e.g. donors, beneficiaries, trustees, staff, volunteers. A charitable organisation I work with currently conducted a strategy review recently, inviting feedback from beneficiaries using surveys, focus groups etc. to find out what they struggle with and aspire to and what role they would want to see the organisation playing in helping them address or achieve these issues. The needs and aspirations that surfaced have been summarised as ‘I’ rather than ‘we’ or ‘they’ statements in clear and colloquial language, keeping the focus on what each individual as beneficiary wants to experience as a result of the organisation’s actions.

This is a sharp contrast with some experiences I’ve had in the past. In one instance, a third sector organisation I worked with set up a drop-in project providing advice and support for long-term unemployed people. The Local Authority provided funding using ‘number of people using the service’ as its key success criterion. Paradoxically, the more successful the service was in enabling local people to find employment, thereby reducing the number of people who needed to access the service, the more the service was deemed statistically by the Local Authority to be failing. A theory of change can help surface such outcomes and assumptions at an early stage, enabling more constructive dialogue and agreement between agencies and stakeholders.

I believe the potential for theory of change extends beyond third sector organisations aiming to articulate their vision, strategy, plans and reasons behind them. I’ve used similar methodologies to explore and articulate an organisation development strategy within a third sector organisation. We started by exploring a number of questions with diverse stakeholders and groups such as, ‘What kind of organisation are we trying to develop?’, ‘Where are we now?’, ‘Why are things as they are?’, ‘What drives or sustains how things are?’, ‘What matters most to people here?’, ‘Who or what influences change?’, ‘What would it take to achieve the changes?’ This enabled us to create a map showing goals, activities, assumptions and causal relationships.

The same principles can be applied at team and individual levels too, e.g. for leadership, coaching, mentoring, training and counselling purposes. It enables dialogue between different parties and keeps rationale and assumptions explicit. If assumptions are clear to all parties, they can be challenged and revised in light of different preferences, perspectives, realities and evidence. I’ve used adaptations of this approach with people and organisations where Christian beliefs have been held as important and integral, developing the model as a theology of change. A theology of change may surface and articulate e.g. God’s purpose, values, presence and activity in the world, the role of the Spirit and Christians, discerning a sense of ‘calling’.

In my experience, the language and methods of applying theory or change need to be adapted for different purposes and audiences. It represents a logical-rational paradigm that is likely to work well for some people and cultures but not so well for others. Using Honey & Mumford’s learning styles as one possible frame of reference, theory of change (as the name implies) may appeal most to people, teams or cultures with a theorist orientation. Reflectors may be attracted most by its emphasis on  surfacing underlying assumptions, activists by the evidential dimensions and pragmatists by its focus on outcomes. Perhaps the key lies in using the principles it embodies flexibly and sensitively in the context of real human dialogue and relationship.

115 Comments
Caryopha None
10/2/2013 02:14:13 am

My opinion changes are internal response to dynamyc external situation wich are affected to organisation the effort to changes are to improve capability for new technology add skill, efficient organisation process to gain the competitive advantage ...the program become sucess when changes can involved all the organisation from top management and share holder...the target are sustain and development.

Reply
Nick Wright
10/2/2013 02:33:22 am

Hi Caryopha and thanks for the note. I agree that changes are often a response to external stimuli and that, in some sectors and organisations, changes are intended to achieve competitive advantage. I also agree that changes are often most successful and sustainable when a broad range of stakeholders are involved.

A theory of change can help to explain how the change will be achieved by articulating goals, desired outcomes, activities to achieve them, causal relationships, underlying assumptions etc. Hope that makes sense. With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Daniel Bassill
10/2/2013 02:15:18 am

This pdf shows a theory of change that I've been working on for nearly 20 years. http://www.tutormentorexchange.net/images/PDF/theoryofchange.pdf Finding others who have civic reach, resources, and leadership roles who share the same thinking has proven very difficult.

Reply
Nick Wright
10/2/2013 02:24:12 am

Hi Daniel and thanks for sharing your theory of change model. I was interested to hear your comment about difficulties in finding others who share the same thinking. What do you think that is about? With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Daniel Bassill
10/2/2013 10:01:12 am

Hi Nick. I worked in retail advertising for a national corporation during the 1970s and 1980s where our corporate office supported over 400 stores with a variety of teams that helped put stories near customers, hire and train store managers and sales people, put merchandise in stores at competitive prices, and provide weekly advertising to draw customers to stores. By building a database of tutor/mentor programs in the Chicago region, I've created the potential that many people could take the role of "corporate office" doing things that would help each local program be more effective than they could be by working alone.

In the non profit sector there are few examples of an aggregation of like-kinded organizations with a purpose of helping each one get the resources needed to constantly improve. There is no advertising money. There is competition for limited resources. Funding is obtained through a constant "seek and be sometimes rewarded" process of donor cultivation, grant writing, etc. Grants are short term and project focused rather than on-going and wholistic. No grant covers but a portion of what it costs for an organization to do all it needs to do to be effective in helping kids move through school and into adult lives and jobs.

The Internet is still a new tool for most people. My own lack of resources to "reach" those who might already be thinking the same way, and the lack of leaders in intermediary roles who intuitively understand this "corporate office" support concept and/or who are interested in connecting, is what I mean by difficulty in finding others who share the same thinking.

It's quite possible that there are thousands of people throughout the world who are trying to do what I'm doing, and are doing it better. However, until someone finds a way to collect and aggregate information about such people, or build a "Linked in group" where they are connecting to each other, most will remain isolated from each other. In my Theory of Change, aggregating this type of information is one of the key strategies.

Chelsey Chen
12/2/2013 09:14:18 am

Daniel,

I'd like to encourage you that there are people out there who understand that make a real positive change in people's lives takes time and its really hard to make that real change happen on short term grants and the whims of donors. I work for an international relief and development organization who suffers from the same issues even though we have worked really hard to diversity our income.
I think the key here is continued education to the public. The general donor (whether its grants or individuals) need to be educated on the fact that while long term programs might appear to cost more $ the truth of the matter is, they actually generally cost less in the long run because they actually work.
I'll give an example of something I came face to face with a few months ago. I traveled to Haiti with my organization and on the way home met a man who was adopting a little boy from Haiti. He was so proud of himself and somewhere in the course of the conversation I found out the child still had a mother who loved him and came to visit him regularly at the orphanage, not only that but he made this really snirky comment about how the mom had to say good bye to her son and didn't even cry stating he doesn't know how people can do such horrible things.
I regret to say that I did not confront the man and try to educate him on the subject but to me, it was very clear this man did in fact need to be educated on the consequences for the lives of that family on what he would be doing.
I think Americans these days are really caught up with the moment. They want a quick fix and don't like to get their hands too dirty or find themselves suffering too much. But what they don't understand is that there are no real quick fixes for reducing poverty, it is just one of those things that take time because real change, physical, mental and spiritual, from the inside out just simply takes time.
We do have to remember though that, that truth goes for both sides... change takes a long time for people to be lifted out of poverty but it also takes a long time for people to change their mind set and understand the implications of short term grants and unstable funding. We recently had the US gov cancel all funding in the middle of a 6 year HIV program... now what happens to all those people, we had no warning and no way to find alternative funding as we were asked to shut down within a month.
Change is hard, people just have to be educated and willing to accept that. which I believe is difficult in our current culture.

Reply
Nick Wright
22/2/2013 05:12:33 am

Hi Chelsey. I couldn't help 'overhearing' your comments to Daniel. I too have noticed and experienced dilemmas in the NGO sector very similar to those you describe. It seems to me there is a challenge on the one hand of donor agencies wanting to see fast results and on the other hand of NGOs demonstrating the relative value of longer term and often more complex interventions.With best wishes. Nick

Ian Brownlee
10/2/2013 02:26:38 am

Here are my thoughts:

Language, psychology and a humanistic perspective on “Change Management".
Short link: http://wp.me/p2guX2-5s

PART 2: Linguistics, psychology and a humanistic perspective of change management: 6 Common Errors. Shortlink: http://wp.me/p2guX2-8S

Hope this adds to the debate

Reply
Nick Wright
10/2/2013 02:41:41 am

Hi Ian and thanks for sharing links to the blogs. The principles you outlined were similar to those advocated by Rosabeth Moss Kanter on the 'human side of change' and by William Bridges on 'managing transitions'. You may find these blogs interesting too? http://www.nick-wright.com/1/post/2012/12/change-leadership-principles.html; http://www.nick-wright.com/1/post/2013/01/leading-through-transition.html; http://www.nick-wright.com/1/post/2013/01/personal-preference-and-change.html. With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Ian Brownlee
10/2/2013 03:24:57 am

Thanks, Nick.

I'm not a great one for reading "gurus" like Moss Kanter, Bridges, etc., these days - too little time, too much work, too many gurus and too many more enjoyable things to do!. However, I'll drop by and read your stuff and am sure that i'll find it interesting.

Have a great week. Ian

Julie link
10/2/2013 08:00:55 pm

Hi Nick and others,
I would encourage anyone who is involved in Change Work of any nature, personal, organisational, coaching to use the work you mention Nick of William Bridges coupled with either Kubler Ross Model or SARAH, these are practical ways of working with people through that personal psychological transition and re-orientation. I have personally used this is global change and transformation interventions within organisation (heavy industry and public sector) and also in 1-1 coaching sessions with clients - all with great impact and outcomes. If we don't pay attention to the internal transition of the people involved then I would advocate the change is not sustainable. cheers Julie

Edwina Love Lawrence
10/2/2013 03:23:15 am

Interesting re change in 3rd Sector, thanks Nick for posting.

Reply
Nick Wright
10/2/2013 03:29:13 am

Thanks Edwina. With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Morgens Sparre
10/2/2013 03:28:38 am

Hi Nick.

Change is a very complex issue. Organizational change does not make it less complex. Everyone wants change, but nobody wants renewal.

It is my experience that when you look at organizational change as moving something from one point to another, is often going wrong. Try to see change on an attempt to influence and control the process in the desired direction. So do not go for a pre-specified endpoint, but rather consider it as a waterfall on the down side of a mountain. It can not be controlled 100%, but by throwing a stone here and there can affect the flow.

Remember - all changes are influenced by the irrational element, we call people.

Reply
Nick Wright
10/2/2013 03:38:04 am

Hi Morgens and thanks for the note. I agree that change is a complex issue and that, in light of this, 'change management' can sometimes feel like an oxymoron!

I really like your analogy of a waterfall and how throwing a stone here and there can affect the flow. It reminded me of complexity theory/emergent approaches to change.

A theory of change can be helpful when there is an important end point. It can surface assumptions and create greater focus and intentionality. It's not the right approach for all kinds of change.

I wasn't sure what you meant when you said, 'Everyone wants change but nobody wants renewal'. Could you say more? I'm intrigued. With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Mogens Sparre
10/2/2013 06:08:44 am

Soren Kierkegaard said wisely: "Everybody wants development, but no one will change"

My one version is today - as it is in to say yes to change.We shall all change.

And everyone also says, that we must transform us - but just not me, because I do the things just right myself.

Chiku Malunga
10/2/2013 03:41:47 am

I guess the first step could be to try to define or come up with a shared and agreed understanding of what we mean by 'theory of change'? For example, how different is it from 'good organizational design?' How different is it from a proper analysis of risks and assumptions?

Reply
Nick Wright
10/2/2013 03:46:24 am

Hi Chiku and thanks for the note. Yes, I wondered similar questions when I joined the workshop, particularly in terms of how a theory of change differs from a strategy map. You may be interested to have a glance at this website which has some interesting descriptions and explanations: http://www.theoryofchange.org/about/what-is-theory-of-change/. With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Chiku Malunga
10/2/2013 06:10:05 am

I just visited the link. It is very rich and illuminating on the subject of theory of change. Based on whats written there I think a theory of change is the 'next logical stage after after a strategy map' and before the 'operational plan' as the strategy gives a general picture while the operational plan gives the detailed activities to implement the strategy. The theory of change is the processing or thinking that connects the strategy and operational plan more consciously. I guess this link has been the missing link in most strategic planning processes. I also understand that theory of change is a whole new way of thinking and practice - meanwhile let me think about how I can articulate my own theory of change.

Karen Bailey link
10/2/2013 05:02:27 am

Hi Nick

When I read the title of your blog my heart sank. It reminded me of a moment when I was working with a title of "change consultant" and one of the directors was speaking at me about the merits of different ‘theories of change’. My blood turned to ice and for a moment I felt very inadequate. I wasn’t familiar with the espoused theories (should I be… best go and read up). I didn’t worry too much about this for too long. Theories and models can do a lot to inform process but may also restrict creative thinking; and or may miss a particular nuance of the organisation and its culture.

As I finished reading your blog I was re-assured that the important aspect in the change management process are the people, how we engage with them, how we show that we have listened and heard the views of others. What really resonated was your reference to hearing the voices of all stakeholders and especially those of the service users. In a change management programme there might be a need to increase effectiveness, reduce costs or go off in a new direction. Such decisions have to be made alongside the qualitative input from others such as staff and service users.

Best wishes
Karen

Reply
Nick Wright
10/2/2013 06:28:11 am

Hi Karen and thanks for your feedback. Your opening comments reminded me vividly of an occasion when I spent a week at a residential event in Canada with a global change management team. At first, I felt lost and inadequate as others in the room spoke eloquently about various change theories and models.

I too felt an initial pressure within myself to go and read up on these theories and models in order to catch up with the rest of the team. After a while, however, I realised that I could add more by being myself and by contributing insights from my own reading, reflections and experiences in the OD and psychology fields.

I agree with your comments on models. At best, a model is a simplification of reality and yet can sometimes prove valuable as a guide or touch stone in the midst of human dynamic and systemic complexity. The human dimensions of change, along with creative thinking/innovative practice, are critical factors in the third sector.

With best wishes and thanks again. Nick

Reply
Bridget
10/2/2013 07:47:22 am

Hi Nick

Fab blog as always, but I'm getting tired of thinking of and trying to do change. Do you think there is ever a justification for not changing? Maybe to give an organisation, (people) chance to recover from change fatigue....

I was interested to ready Karen's comments and your response on the "change theories". I guess everything is a theory until it is put into practise.

Yours wearily

B

Reply
Griff Griffiths link
10/2/2013 09:03:10 am

Bridget asks if there is ever a justification for not changing. That says something to me about our understanding of the word in organisations. What if we replaced 'change' with 'adapt'? Isn't that what 'change' is for - a response to the need to adapt to a changing environment?

So, is there ever a justification to not adapting? In organisational terms, no, I don't think so, unless you want your organisation to die. A problem with 'change' is that it's perceived as an additional and tiring thing to do, whereas the capacity to (continually) adapt is an intrinsic quality in any healthy human system.

Adapting should be part of what an organisation does. It's a living thing.

Anyway, Nick was talking about theories of change in the world outside the organisation, so I may be a little off topic now - although for me, change inside and change outside the organisation are linked.


Reply
Nick Wright
10/2/2013 10:40:39 am

Hi Griff. I agree that changes in different spheres are linked, whether that be at personal, interpersonal, organisational or wider social levels.

I wonder if 'adaptation' is one way of thinking about change and motivation for change; i.e. as a response to external stimuli or circumstances. Another way could be proactive or innovative change originating in intrinsic mission, values or other internal drivers, aimed at disrupting or reshaping the landscape.

Third sector organisations are often engaged in both types at the same time, e.g. providing services in response to a need (adaptive) and conducting advocacy to change the policy landscape in a desired direction (proactive). This can result in tensions, especially if the institution(s) the organisation is lobbying is/are the same institutions that provide access to e.g. resources or beneficiaries.

I like your description of organisation as a living thing. I sometimes use the expression, 'organisations don't exist - but people do' as a way of reframing conversations or constructs in that direction. With best wishes. Nick

Nick Wright
10/2/2013 10:16:23 am

Hi Bridget and thanks for such an honest personal response. It sounds like you are describing 'change fatigue'. I've certainly experienced it and worked in organisations that were experiencing it. I did a quick Google search and found a few good short articles on change fatigue and resilience that you may find interesting and helpful: https://sites.google.com/site/changefatigue/causes-of-change-fatigue; https://sites.google.com/site/changefatigue/strategies-for-managing-change-1; http://ucsfhr.ucsf.edu/index.php/assist/article/a-personal-strategy-for-engaging-and-building-your-resilience/. Let me know what you think? With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Geoffrey Morton-Haworth
10/2/2013 09:59:54 am

What a good question Nick!

Just over twenty years ago I was pitching reengineering to the Board of Shell In Cape Town when halfway through someone lobbed in the apparently simple question "what is your change management methodology?" I looked over the faces, only one black (the HR director), and thought who am I to presume to tell these people anything about managing the huge changes that lie before them. Remember, Nelson Mandela was released on 11 February 1990 (the same year that Michael Hammer's HBR piece kicking off the fad for business reengineering claimed that the major challenge for managers is to obliterate non-value adding work, rather than using technology for automating it). Well I fudged some kind of answer, stumbled through the rest of the presentation, sold the project, and vowed never again to be caught out by such a profound and profoundly-important question.

So, here goes once again my "Theory of Change": Change is about Learning, Learning is about Communication. Communication is NOT a message, a medium and an audience. Communication is NOT what you say, but everything you do. Communication is the Environment you create. And In that Environment lie Individuals, Groups and Organizations and the Relationships between them... the "Discourse", if you like.

Thus managing change is the process of managing that Discourse, seeking to make it more articulate, more symmetrical (less political) and more authentic (more ethical, that is, in the sense of Habermas's Discourse Ethics).

Whenever my interventions turned out well in organizations, it was because I was somehow able to improve the quality of the discourse. Whenever they turned out badly, it was because I debased the discourse by - for example - rushing in with "the right answer", thus cheating the people of the ownership of finding it (or an even better one) for themselves.

There is more to say, but this is the short answer that I wish I had given in South Africa. Fortunately, its people seemed to do rather well on their own; its Truth and Reconciliation Commission surprised many with its compassion and forgiveness and - of course - was criticized by some for just this (see http://en.wikipedia.org )./wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_%28South_Africa%29).

Reply
Nick Wright
10/2/2013 10:49:29 am

Hi Geoffrey and thanks for posting such a thoughtful response and such profound personal reflections. I really liked your focus on environment and discourse. It focuses attention on quality of contact, relationships and conversations, thereby having greatest potential for transformation and sustainability, especially in the type of complex social-political contexts you describe. I guess it's one of the reason why values and practices such as participation, dialogue, empowerment and collaboration are so often at the heart of third sector organisations. With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Terrence Seamon
10/2/2013 11:48:49 am

Nick, I also like this question, What is your theory of change?

Geoffrey, Your answer resonates with me. And reminds me of the Engine of Success from Ken Modesitt:

http://users.ipfw.edu/modesitk/index.htm

As computer educator Ken Modesitt says: "As the quality of relationships rises, the quality of thinking improves, leading to an increase in the quality of actions and results. Achieving high quality results has a positive effect on the quality of relationships, creating a reinforcing engine of success."

How might this relate to change in organizations? I'd adapt it from Modesitt and say that, to have an effective change, you need all four components in the engine: relationships, thinking, actions, and results.

Reply
Nick Wright
10/2/2013 12:01:39 pm

Hi Terrence and thanks for the note. I really like the 'engine of success' model you shared. It reminds me of research in fields such as Human Givens (http://www.hgi.org.uk/) that show how emotional arousal such as anxiety and negative stress can have inhibiting or distorting effects on thinking.

Insofar as good quality relationships can impact positively on emotional states, it would seem to follow that good quality relationships can impact on quality of thinking too. I guess other dimensions of good quality relationships could include capacity for creative thinking by capitalising positively on diversity.

This model could be built into a theory of change by showing how actions aimed at developing the quality of relationships could contribute to the achievement of quality results or outcomes, drawing on relevant research, experience or evidence to support this assumption and causal link. With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Geoffrey Morton-Haworth
10/2/2013 01:30:40 pm

Hi Terrence. The Engine of Success from Ken Modesitt does indeed map to my thinking on change. But I would note that by improving the quality of the discourse I am not suggesting we need to like each other any more. I am thinking of folks, like the Public Conversations Project (PCP), who do great work improving dialogue across divides without seeking to reach consensus at all: Jews and Arabs, homosexuals and homophobes, pro-life and pro-choice, loggers and environmentalists, and so on.

Hi Nick. Yes. I was born in Africa (Nyasaland/Malawi), brought up by black nannies, and spoke Chinyanja before English. So I felt this deeply.

Certainly, anxiety and negative stress have inhibiting or distorting effects on thinking. So PCP and others place great emphasis on weeding out bullies and censors (like all too many senior executives, perhaps?) in order to make it safe for others to talk.

However, the experiences shaping my "theory of change" seem more in line with notions of setting a stage that will encourage the emergence of collective intelligence in a complex adaptive systems sense.

But I also like Paul Watzlawick's thinking in "Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution". Probably one to read if you are into Human Givens and don't already know the book. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watzlawick

Reply
Nick Wright
10/2/2013 01:37:32 pm

Hi Geoffrey. Reading your notes on your background and discourse made me wonder if you have come across Adam Kahane's work, 'Solving Tough Problems' ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/Solving-Tough-Problems-Listening-Realities/dp/1576754642/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1360531964&sr=1-1) and Marshall Rosenberg's 'Nonviolent Communication' (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nonviolent-Communication-Language-Marshall-Rosenberg/dp/1892005034/ref=pd_sim_b_6). May be of interest if you haven't seen them before? With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Geoffrey Morton-Haworth
10/2/2013 01:40:43 pm

And, of course, you've got to read Gregory Bateson who is the father of us all.

Reply
Cindy Myers PhD
10/2/2013 01:41:29 pm

...and another read of Thomas Kuhn would certainly benefit me in this endeavor...

Geoffrey Morton-Haworth
11/2/2013 01:05:15 am

Nick. Two excellent references, many thanks.

Cindy your allusion to Thomas Kuhn puts me in mind of another key ingredient in any theory of change: paradox. One of Kuhn's most controversial assertions was the "incommensurability of paradigms", basically that you can't see the new paradigm coming from within the old one. My erstwhile mentor, Ioan Tenner, says not so. Paradox is a "master's tool" that enables us to peek over the edges of the rut that we are in. See http://tenner.thinkhost.com/consult/art2.html

Reply
Brian Basham
11/2/2013 01:06:05 am

Hi Nick

You pose the most interesting questions!

From my cynical perspective, the more we change the more we stay the same. I work for the police force here, and all changes are not radical changes, but changes so management can stamp the imprimatur on the position/role. By way of example, for the previous 10 years police officers could wear beards; now they can't. The reason, the new chief does not like and thinks that a clean shaven face makes one more professional (sorry to Daniel above :-) So, the force wide change took us back to the early 1990's. Other changes include the requirement to wear hats when outside, again back to the 1990's. The major organisational changes reflect changes to reduce senior public servants and replace them with sworn police officers. Again back to the 1990's. Departments are now Commands, e.g. Ethical Standards Department is now Ethical Standards Command. Why - don't know. And this pretty much explains most organisational changes.

On the less cynical side, I was taught years ago by my martial arts instructor that 'all is change and change is constant'. As such , we should be ready for change and go with the change rather than challenging or railing against change. I have found that this advice has held me in good stead over the years. Especially as being public servant, we are often at the whims of our political masters. While the advice is sound, I sometimes forget.

Reply
Nick Wright
15/2/2013 12:01:22 pm

Hi Brian and thanks for posting such interesting reflections in response. Your opening comments reminded me of the French proverb, 'Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.' Your comments on specific changes in the police also made me think about what criteria and methods we use to determine whether change is progressive or regressive.

In a different context, I once heard the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, counter arguments from a secular humanist who argued that the church should 'move with the times' and 'catch up with the rest of society'. Williams simply responded by challenging the notion that the rest of society is necessarily progressing in some definitive sense and within what paradigm.

Your final comments reminded me of contrasts in the ways in which Western and Eastern cultures sometimes view, experience, create or respond to change. This is a hugh generalisation, but my impression is that Western cultures are far more concerned with managing change and thereby managing our own destiny whereas Eastern cultures are often more adaptive and accepting.

I will be interested to hear what you and others think! With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Rho Sandberg
11/2/2013 03:31:42 am

This is a fabulous question Nick, At the very heart of coaching. I draw on Process Work a method which looks at our known identity or the status quo, what is emerging (or required by the situation) and the edges the individual has to becoming more versatile and fluid in their ways of engaging with the world. This may help to explain the notion of the edge a little more: http://thegritintheoyster.cleconsulting.com.au/blog/working-our-edges-and-no-go-zones

Reply
Nick Wright
15/2/2013 12:17:49 pm

Hi Rho and thank you for sharing such fascinating insights through your blog. I can certaintly identify with the 'edge' experience you describe, both in terms of my own personal experience and that of clients and organisations I work with. I will be very interested to read your follow-up postings on this topic. With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Ashley Scott
11/2/2013 09:06:43 am

Thanks for the post (and comments) that resonate strongly and have conjured a couple of reflections on my own organisational change experiences.

Seems to me that the theory of change modifies according to the stage of the organisation’s strategic lifecycle; then, as you point out, the complexity of the issues faced, the philosophical depths that need to be plumbed in order to propose a solution and which stakeholders clout counts for most in the reframing. But the thing that has always struck me is that the quality of change has much to do with the chemistry that exists among the leadership team charged with delivering on the process.

Last, I can’t resist a comment on the bouncer you bowl about the theology of change. What can accentuate the sense of calling is an overlay of values (and sometimes deeply held belief) that is to do with the “truth” of what is going on around here. And it is maybe more challenging to deal with the transcendent and immutable alongside the nuts and bolts of effective organizational change. Or is it?

Reply
Nick Wright
21/2/2013 12:37:10 am

Hi Ashley and thanks for the thought-provoking comments. I too have found that a significant factor in achieving intentional change is the quality of contact and relationship between the people in the team leading the change. I've also noticed how any cracks in team relationships can widen to breaking point when placed under the pressures that change can bring. This is one reason why leadership teambuilding that surfaces and addresses underlying tensions can be so critical before and during change processes. Your final comments on theology of change sound intriguing but I'm not sure I have understood you...could you say a little more? With thanks and best wishes. Nick

Reply
Ashley Scott link
22/2/2013 07:39:57 am

Thanks Nick - here's my ha'peth.

You will understand the notion of “divine calling” and its variants I’m sure. Believers in a faith-based organization can see their job as a “divine appointment” too. It becomes a piece of personal truth in a belief system of what is true for them more generally.

A colleague of mine recently published his PhD thesis on worker motivation in faith-based INGO’s and, perhaps unsurprisingly, found that “personal meaning” (expressed in faith terms) ranked highest among intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors. Allied to an organizational culture that also reflects something of those personal convictions then that meaningfulness becomes a powerful self-reinforcing loop. And, by and large, it is a positive thing for the person and the organization.

Of course, personal meaning and identification with a cause is not unique to faith-based entities, but this theological dimension gives it another twist in my experience when it comes to organizational change. It goes something like this…

If someone has a conviction that God has “called” them into a specific role and then, say, a manager comes along and says they have to undertake another role or they no longer have a role, then that theology of what is true for them becomes conflicted. A dissonance arises between what they believe to be true and what they experience - and sometimes with negative consequences.

Which takes me back to the role of leadership in a faith-based enterprise in setting a theological tone that is conducive to change. Indeed, done right it is one of the criteria for successful change interventions - but that’s a topic for another time!

Nick Wright
23/2/2013 01:06:43 am

Hi Ashley and thanks for the note. The phenomena you describe certainly resonate with my experiences in faith-based organisations, including the issues of intrinsic motivation and potential for dissonance. You may be interested to have a glance at this short article that explores this and similar issues: http://www.nick-wright.com/word-to-the-wise.html. With thanks and best wishes. Nick

Joy Ng
14/2/2013 05:08:57 am

I applied Lewin's change model. Resistance was still present; but I got little successes along the way. Issues being addressed were varied and mostly cultural. I am hoping a formal education on OD or OT would help me better implement change initiatives.

Reply
Nick Wright
21/2/2013 12:42:14 am

Hi Joy and thanks for your fascinating response. Could you say a bit more about how you applied Lewin's model, what kind of cultural issues emerged, how you addressed them etc? I would love to hear more. With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Joy Ng
21/2/2013 04:40:03 am

Hi Nick. I applied unfreezing, transformation and refreezing. Let us take our Healthy Eating, Healthy Living lifestyle program. When I first came in the company, any kind of food can be served in meetings and events. With the Management's directive on healthy eating, we started by removing certain foods and condiments; until we were able to imbibe in the employees the benefit of eating healthy foods and taking healthy drinks. It also came with lectures and sharing sessions. Now our menu consists only of healthy foods and healthy drinks, combined with healthy lifestyle of exercising, biking, etc. After the transformation (4 years after), we are now in the refreezing stage, where we incorporated the healthy eating, healthy living in our wholistic wellness program.
Cultural issues: They were already used to eating certain foods in their locality...It can not be fully implemented because it will only be done in the workplace...Organic foods are expensive...
Aside from emphasizing on the benefits of healthy eating and healthy living, we gave them nutritious menu for their family. We gave them menus making use of locally grown foods. They started to appreciate. Best regards.
Joy

Crispin Garden-Webster
14/2/2013 05:10:20 am

Not so much theory but a set of principles...

- People don't resist change they resist being changed
- Talk to the impacted people
- Change is personal - no amount of process elegance will be listened to unless you deal with WIIFM first
- Resistance is engagement; a legitimate response to protecting the investment made in the satus quo... It is feedback you havn't yet made the case for change.

... and more but gotta go

Reply
Nick Wright
21/2/2013 01:03:49 am

Hi Crispin and thanks for your thoughtful comments.

I really liked your comment that 'resistance is enagement - a legitimate response to protecting the investment made in the status quo'. As well as calling into question how well the case for change has been made, it could also signal e.g. a lack of trust in those leading the change or a feeling that the past has been ignored, dishonoured or rejected.

The notion that resistance is enagement reminded me of an organisation I worked with where a high number of respondents gave what were regarded as 'negative' scores in a staff survey. The leader who owned the survey commented that the overall low scores indicated low levels of staff engagement.

I challenged this conclusion on the basis that (a) high levels of staff had chosen to complete the survey, thereby indicating high levels of engagement and (b) their 'negative' scores were on important issues that really mattered to them. Perhaps the real opposite of engagement is not resistance but apathy..? With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Crispin Garden-Webster
21/2/2013 04:18:09 am

Nick you touch of one of the emerging ironies in the OD/HR domain... the pursuit of employee satisfaction.

In an organisation facing change do we want satisfied people?

How about highly engaged but dissatisfied people?

Employee satisfaction... the nemisis of learning agility and change readiness.

Arthur Lerner
21/2/2013 10:21:50 am

@Nick and Crispin --

Thanks for expanding on issues surrounding engagement and satisfaction. Employee satisfaction is never a sufficient end. If how the satisfaction is assessed is done well it is at best an indicator of other things one would value from employees. I agree that engagement is different, just that most everyone thinks engagement means "positive" as opposed to giving a damn.

OD jargon and - worse - the jargon of management and HR overall are mainly framed as euphemisms rather than directly stating what something is/someone is after.

I know I blathered on about DVF, but what prompted me to rethink the original inequality and replace Resistance with Inertia was that organitions are seldom after change. I am writing a book tentatively titled "Machines can make change, Only people make progress." The former is a more wide-ranging and ambiguous term, used because it becomes less controversial or because people's thinking is muddled. It also contributes to the rise in attraction of "change management" to grow in recent years to embrace entirely different domanis (e.g computer programming and team building), thus collapsing distinctions even further. to lessen the impact and differences in understanding nad points of view that are inherent to different disciplines. Progress suggests, at least implicitly, that someone is dissatisfied with the present state, and has some idea of better would look like. In organizations, progress depends on getting people to agree on that. While it can be done on the WIIFM principle, the best that can achieve is what political deal makers do to get some law passed rather than any deeper commitment to what that law intends. Self interest is a good thing, but unless the change is for individuals, the strength and endurability of a change is weakened by being a collection of individual WIIFM rather than collective interests that people believe includes them.

The role of dissatisfactionin DVF - when properly understood and expressed in a healthful way - is the basis for the energy that drives change, precisely because it is expressed and shared.. Complacency encourages doing nothing new or better. The OD skill is in fostering and enabling the "healthful" thoughts and feelings to be addressed openly, raised in public, probed and questioned safely in different contexts.

Louise Metcalf (MAPS, COP)
14/2/2013 05:11:11 am

Change for organisations is highly contextual, so I use multiple theories of change dependent on the situation. That's the best way since some approaches work well in some national and organisational cultures and others, not so well! Being very flexible and also keeping your assumptions in mind (and testing them wherever possible) is very important. Knowing which approaches suit takes a great deal of experience and I highly recommend people work with experienced supervisors before they get to that stage of expertise.

Reply
Nick Wright
21/2/2013 12:51:09 am

Hi Louise. I like your words of wisdom on contextualisation, flexibility, awareness and supervision. I was particularly interested in your comment about how 'some approaches work well in some national and organisational cultures and others not so well'. That certainly resonates with my own experiences, e.g. of being invited to introduce coaching and action learning in Asia where cultural beliefs and dynamics around e.g. authority and face-saving sometimes proved interesting and challenging. Do you have any specific examples you would be willing to share, including what the issues were, how culture affected the way those issues were perceived and handled etc? I would love to hear more. With thanks and best wishes. Nick

Reply
Arthur Lerner
14/2/2013 02:42:47 pm

I want to (partially) address Nick’s first question. To address them all properly would take a lengthy article, at minimum.

First, a few words about theory. A theory is (an attempt to have) an explanation about connection in behavior or two or more variables. Better theories also have predictive value, i.e. can account for dynamics not yet observed. Good theories have never been proven false (proving causation is impossible), and theories are considered greater to if they cover a greater range of variable relationships than others w/o being false in any.

In its briefest form it states,

Dissatisfaction x Vision X First Steps must be greater than existing Inertia for a desired change to occur. It is abbreviated as D x V x F > I.

While quite simple on its surface, it has complex implications and a wide variety of uses whenever change is directed or managed in practice. Think of its simplicity and power as analogous to Boyle’s Law in physics which specifies the never changing interaction principles (between the nuclear and stellar levels) of Pressure, Volume, and Temperature. Boyle’s Law is universally applicable, and can be understood by fifth graders, but, it does not specify how to put it to practical use. However, engineering inventiveness and ingenuity in designing according to this law and its constraints have yielded thousands of beneficial and specialized inventions from oil drilling equipment to heating systems to internal combustion engines to rockets that take us into space. All of these work by understanding the Law (not as suggestions), and what it says is possible and impossible. “DVF” is similarly as encompassing as regards intentional change pursued by people.

There is not space to here to explain in fully, but I will attempt some conceptual clarification.
++ Dissatisfaction with a present condition/circumstance must be present or there is no sustainable motivation to change. E.g., having a vision of doubling profits and knowing steps to take to move toward doing it will not become a reality if everyone one is content to less ambitious growth. The greater the dissatisfaction the more energy is directed toward the effort to change.
++ Vision is a believable and compelling image/description of where a change is to lead. It is needed to keep the change effort coherent, on track, and worth achieving. To the extent that the Vision needs to be shared by others it needs to be as clear and evocative as possible in terms of what it will look like and how it will manifest. A modest analogy for a strong shared vision is not just words on paper, but like getting a picture postcard from the future with comments and description of what is happening
++ First Steps involve taking preliminary action in the right direction. For most changes involving human behavior it is virtually impossible to predict the future, i.e. to plan all the steps in advance, so First Steps yield eventually to newly created Next Steps. It is in this domain that other theories of change and change management are most affected. At minimum there will need to “course corrections” as experience is gained, and dynamics inevitably shift.
++ Inertia is always present and can be characterized in various ways. A desirable change may include changing a direction, starting something moving, increasing the speed with which things get done, etc., or some combination of those effects. These effects affect every social domain. A special note here: As in physics, inertia is also the only mechanism/variable through which resistance exists and is experienced. Recognizing this can often prevent undesirable responses to a change from occurring, and – more typically – provide a useful way to address behavioral challenges.

Reply
Arthur Lerner
14/2/2013 02:44:00 pm

(continued from above...)

I know of no organizational change effort that DVF does not address. However, there are some related thoughts. First is to note that when we speak of change, we really mean a more narrowly defined and directed form of change. All kinds of changes are happening constantly within organizations. We mostly ignore changes that gain unguided momentum in an organization, or those behaviors that shift within a know repertoire because of some special circumstance. Think of New York small businesses in the wake of Sandy.

Second, and related to the last, bear in mind that each of these variables must be evident at the level the change is aimed at. Amassing dissatisfactions or visions that individuals will not share in public, will have little to no deliberate effect in changing dynamics of a team, department, division, or corporation. To the extent that the change desired goes beyond two people, it must be shared by at least a “critical mass” to move anything.

Third, more generally, there are theories we use that are more focused than - yet nested within -the DVF theory. As with Boyle’s Law, there are thousands of operations and theories that apply more narrowly/situationally, but the overriding theory still holds., e.g. strategic planning and implementation, team building, various conflict models, etc. Especially important are those theories that manifest themselves socially/organizationally but are (theoretically) predicated more on individual psychological dynamics, e.g. certain conflict theories, Argyris’s Undiscussables, Hersey & Blanchard’s work on supervision.

Reply
Crispin Garden-Webster
14/2/2013 02:45:08 pm

Related and consistent with Arthur's points is Everett Roger's work on diffusion of innovation and uptake of technology. Roger's work points to five factors affecting the rate of technology adoption and we need to consider these as criteria for developing engagement activities in chnage programmes that realte to introduction of new technologies:
1. Relative advantage: the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than the current approach. The greater the perceived relative advantage of an innovation, the more rapid its rate of adoption
2. Compatibility: the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters
3. Complexity: the degree to which an innovation is perceived as easy or difficult to understand and use
4. Trialability: the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis. If an innovation is trialable, it results in less uncertainty for adoption
5. Observability: the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others and how visible is technology use by respected peers. The easier it is for individuals to see the results of an innovation, the more likely they are to adopt.

Reply
Barry Stein
15/2/2013 11:13:47 am

Hi all.

This is a very good discussion, full of insightful comments. Here are my 2 cents worth.
First, what is my "theory of change"? This is a deceptively simple phrasing because it implicitly assumes that there is "a" theory of change. But there are in fact many types of "change" that appear in our work with organizations. But I will take it at face value anyway, and offer an equally deceptive answer.

Change takes place when it is easy for people to do the right things.

This is a deceptive answer because many factors bear on people's behavior and some of them are unknown and sometimes unknowable, even to the actor. So this formulation is more like a recipe. It tells you how to get to the point you seek, step by step Let me unpack it a bit.

For example, how can people reliably know what the right thing is, or could be? Can they actually do it, even if they know what it is? Etc. And, of course, the complete result and even the exact nature of an action can never be known, not because it is secret but because by definition, we are talking about complex systems, in which many of the details of actual behavior are a response to changing circumstances at a particular time. They are, in fact, the "strange attractors" beloved by mathematical complexity theorists.

However, net net, we can generally have confidence in by far the largest and most important parts of emergent and consequential changes, which is why we can manage organizations at all. If we get 80% or more right, we can be confident that the remainder can be worked out to any degree necessary as actions and consequences become clearer by those involved at the time and in the place.

So, though we cannot ensure every detail, we don't need to, and looking for the correct answer up front is not only a waste of time and effort; it may even be counter -productive. Life in organizations, as in people, is not, need not and should not be precisely predictable.

Reply
Geoffrey Morton-Haworth
15/2/2013 11:14:54 am

Barry. Lots of good sense there. Only trouble is that it is far too easy for leaders to do the wrong thing, and to keep on doing it with impunity.

For example, endless studies have shown that approximately two-thirds of acquisitions fail to return the acquirer's cost of capital. So why do people keep on doing them? Look at who gets rich: the CEOs, merchant bankers and lawyers - to hell with the shareholders.

Reply
Nick Wright
21/2/2013 01:17:21 am

Hi Barry and thanks for your thought-provoking comments, e.g. 'change takes place when its easy for people to do the right things'.

I guess we could add something like, 'when people find the change inspiring' because this motivates people to overcome obstacles (and, for some people, the challenge is what motivates) even when it doesn't feel easy.

I liked your comments on complexity, e.g. knowing what the 'right' thing to do is, knowing what motivates behaviour, whether precise predictability is necessary or even productive etc. It strikes me that these factors call for wisdom, humility and flexibility.

I wondered...do your have any examples from experience of working with these complex issues in organisations that you would be willing to share? I would be very interested to hear more. With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Ankit Shukla
17/2/2013 12:15:34 pm

First of Thanks to Nick the questions he has raised are very fundamental but very powerful in this domain.

With a little experience that I have as on OD consultant, I feel people change faster or in other words they accept the change once they see that the change is adding some value. This is a very basic fact which applies to every potential human being alive as our cognitive principles are laid so.

So one aspect of the theory would be to communicate properly across the value addition that the change is bringing. Ones the people see that they have some value addition, you will have their buy in.

Issues that such initiatives face are departmental silos, Hierarchical boundaries & myths, ones unwillingness to move out of his/her comfort zone, Lack of proper communication, departmental priorities for their individual departments are a few to list here & many more.

We do interventions to hand hold & facilitate the implementation of High Performance Work System (HPWS) aka Self Managed Teams (SMT) aka Self Directed Work Teams (SDWT) aka by many other names in different countries of the world.

Aim is to have an empowered workforce at the associate level who are able to plan, take day to day decisions at their workplace with RESPONSIBLE FREEDOM.

Such interventions require a top down approach, as any change initiative not driven from the top is difficult to execute & sustain. Leaders have to be role model for the others to follow.

Another very important & very powerful tool for successful implementation is to Reward, Recognize & Reinforce the contributions by the various stakeholders from time to time.

Reply
Nick Wright
22/2/2013 04:07:27 am

Hi Ankit and thanks for your comments. I agree that people are more likely to buy into changes if they perceive the changes will add value. I guess one of the complicating factors is that different stakeholders have different interests and, therefore, different perspectives on what constitutes 'value'.

I think this is where OD practitioners can add value by (a) helping different stakeholders identify and articulate their respective interests and (b) helping those stakeholders find way to navigate or resolve differences where tensions or conflicts emerge between them.

I agree that aligning reward and recognition with actions and behaviours that support desired changes can help reinforce and sustain change. Again, in my experience it's important to help different stakeholders to identify and articulate what rewards or forms of recognition they would value most.

With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Barry Stein
17/2/2013 12:21:26 pm

Geoffrey:

Thanks for your comment. As for the "leaders" behavior, the same principle applies to them. They are also -- as is everyone -- responding to forces outside themselves, making it easy for them to do what they do. Their environment is very different than those, and the forces acting on them are obviously different, and many are indeed outside the organization, but not all. Think about the South African company you mentioned earlier. I'll bet they had an executive floor, suite or building that did not make it easy for them to be engaged more with the "lower" workers. Even beyond the building there are plenty of sources of influence that are not conducive to their "doing the right thing" or even thinking about it.

And, of course, your comment about CEOs, merchant bankers and lawyers is accurate but the reason they find it easy to do those things and not others is very much a function of what is made easy for them in their position. They are doing the easy things. We should remember that an organization's functional boundaries go far beyond the statutory enterprise. The problem is that their control and ability to modify those things is harder, and those around them are not all trying to help with that organizational problem.

Barry

Reply
Geoffrey Morton-Haworth
17/2/2013 12:22:15 pm

Right, Barry. We must beware the "fundamental attribution error" of explaining the behavior of others as "dispositional" (personality) errors while we see our own behavior as caused by situational factors (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error).

MIT (now Harvard) Prof Rebecca Henderson joked that the subtitle of her proposed book "Stuck: Why it is so hard to do new things in old organizations" ought to be "Why I think my people are lazy, and why they don't think much of me either."

Pertinent to these interesting times in the academic world. I see Clayton Christensen has just posted a piece entitled: “Higher Education Is 'On The Edge Of The Crevasse'”. See http://www.businessinsider.com/clay-christensen-higher-education-on-the-edge-2013-2

Can I stir some life in the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor of my first university? No way! If/when it all goes pear shape, it is easy (and true) to day they'll just retire comfortably but they are also blinded to sunk costs by accounting numbers like everyone else.

Reply
Terrence Seamon
17/2/2013 12:23:07 pm

Kurt Lewin had a theory of change:

"There is nothing so practical as a good theory."

"If you want truly to understand something, try to change it."

Reply
Nick Wright
22/2/2013 04:10:29 am

Hi Terrence. Great quotations! :) With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Van Agudo
17/2/2013 12:23:46 pm

Hi Nick,

On the level of people, my theory goes this way: "People will only change when they have no option; people rarely change when they have options."

On the level of organizations: "Employees will only have the motivation to change when they see the Leaders of the organization already demonstrating the behaviors of the future state."

On the level of organizational culture: "Values can only be meaningful if they are rewarded."

These are my personal thoughts about the Theory of Change; other than these, i would agree that intrinsic change is always in response to external change(s). Evolution has always been the strongest motivator for survival. Some are quick to spot the opportunities to change while in the present; most would just let change pass them by.

Thanks.

Reply
Nick Wright
22/2/2013 04:19:19 am

Hi Van and thanks for sharing such thought-provoking comments. My own impression is less that people only change when they have no option and more that people choose to change when they believe the changes will benefit them, or others that matter to them, or some cause they believe is important. Would you agree?

Your comment about evolution and response to external change(s) as a primary motivation for change is interesting too. Whilst I think that's often true, I also believe that people or groups sometimes change and influence change because of intrinsic 'internal' beliefs, values or sense of purpose they hold. Would you agree?

With thanks and best wishes. Nick

Reply
Christie Scott
17/2/2013 12:25:00 pm

For info on creating lasting change, check out the book The Power of Habit. Fascinating!
C

Reply
Nick Wright
22/2/2013 04:21:40 am

Hi Christie and thanks for the book recommendation. I will check it out. What insights did you draw from it? I would be very interested to hear more. With best wishes. Nick

Reply
John-Myles Black EdD
17/2/2013 12:26:22 pm

In effecting change, I use the Leading Change techniques often used by GE and other large companies. The thinking behind it is systems approach championed by the European Foundation of Quality Management. Resistance is always present and working with it (not against it) is how one wins the employees who are capable of bringing change.

Reply
Nick Wright
22/2/2013 04:24:29 am

Hi John and thanks for the note. I would be very interested to hear more about the Leading Change techniques you mention and about how, in practice, you have found ways to work with resistance rather than against it. Would you be happy to share more? With thanks and best wishes. Nick

Reply
John-Myles Black EdD
23/2/2013 01:22:58 am

Nick,
Going into change without considering resistence is missing a lot of synergy. Often the most voiciferous of the employees have good reason for their push-back and the consultant should look into the reasons. In my experience, most of the resistence is well founded. I also like to address the resistance directly as soon as possible: firsst, in my initial consulting with leadership and, second in an intensive workshop with the involved staff. Depending on the level in the organisation, the resistence may vary and working the resistance should be a major part of the action plans for the beginning of the project.

While some insecure or non-transparent management may have problems, I like to bring in the labor representatives at the beginning and make them part of the company solution. Working in Germany, where co-determination is very prevalent, they have never let me down.

Philippa van Kuilenburg
17/2/2013 12:27:20 pm

There are those who actively work on self development because they are unhappy with current outcomes, there are those who recognize the need to change but inertia holds them back and they complain about the problem, those who are blind to the need and then it hits them full on and they recognize there is a problem and then there are those who believe if everyone else changed life who be so much better.
There has to be a desire and a will to make the change before change can begin. The process in making change means that something has to be let go of in order for the change to occur. That may mean that a thought, belief or feeling so that the new behaviour is congruent and effective. I work with the identifying the conflict between desire and and resistance (reactive fear for those who know the Focal Conflict model) I may focus initially resourcing the person if I do not believe the person has sufficient believe they deserve the new and this may mean they need to work on some old history that gets in the way. That may be unsuccessful history within the workplace or if it resides in early history and is having a major impact then I will suggest they go and do some work around that area.
Some useful books are Feel the Fear and do it anyway by S Jefffers, I like a piece out of Aquarian Conspiracy by M Fearguson where she talks about the gates of change and The path of least resistance Fritz

Reply
Nick Wright
22/2/2013 04:32:36 am

Hi Philippa and thanks for sharing such interesting reflections on this topic. I was particularly interested to hear of the Focal Conflict model and the way you work with a person's beliefs. Could you say something more about the model and, perhaps, share an example of how you have applied it to practice? I wondered too if you may be familiar with Immunity to Change. This short blog may be of interest on that topic: http://www.nick-wright.com/1/post/2012/06/immunity-to-change.html. With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Philippa van Kuilenburg
23/2/2013 01:24:29 am

Hi Thank you for the link, if you give me your email I will send you an article on the Focal Conflict Model.

Martine Bolton
18/2/2013 11:23:15 am

My theory is that change in the evolutionary sense is an inevitable, constant and gradual process. We are continuously changing and evolving even if we aren't trying to and we don't recognise it. Change occurs naturally and effortlessly unless we resist it, and if we resist it we don't survive.

Change that individuals choose for themselves usually feels great. Change that is imposed on individuals can feel very uncomfortable.

Rapid and radical change (ie the kind that organisations often talk about, and the kind needed in changing an ingrained habit) is rather slower and more difficult to achieve, as it relies on people doing something differently, and on having a desire to change and a very strong personal motivation for doing so.

The book 'Influencer - the Power to Change Anything', is a useful read for anyone trying to influence behaviour change, as it highlights all the forces that can influence behaviour, and advises on multiple strategies for addressing these. So whilst personal motivation is a biggy, if people don't also have the information, skills, support, encouragement, incentives, tools etc to assist them in performing the new behaviours (and perhaps disincentives for not doing so), the change effort will probably bomb.

In a nutshell, achieving change is theoretically quite 'simple' (ie it might only involve doing something differently), but it is not very 'easy' to achieve. Interesting the difference between those two little words!

Reply
Nicole Young
20/2/2013 11:52:25 pm

Martine - thanks for mentioning the book, "Influencer..." I've had it sent to my kindle and am looking forward to reading it.

Reply
Nick Wright
22/2/2013 04:44:30 am

Hi Martine and thanks for sharing such profound reflections so succinctly. I agree with your comments on on-going change as a natural life experience and how change can feel very different if chosen or imposed. I haven't come across the 'Influencer' book you mentioned so I will check it out. On the topic of influence, I wondered if you would find this blog interesting? http://www.nick-wright.com/1/post/2013/01/the-art-of-influence1.html. With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Per Barda
20/2/2013 05:40:46 am

The wall creates change. One day its there. Its blocking you. You must deal with it. Its not going away. You can make it go away, like brick by brick. Take the exams needed and use the outcome. Or:Cheat, and let the wall haunt you forever. The wall is the ultimate changeagent. Challenge your guts, stamina, brains and body.

Reply
Nick Wright
22/2/2013 04:49:50 am

Hi Per and thanks for the note. I found your poetic, mysterious imagery of the wall very evocative and profound. It offers great material for deeper reflection. Thank you for sharing it. With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Andrew Campbell
20/2/2013 05:41:38 am

I like the simplicity of Arthur's theory. But I feel some elements are missing.

What about leadership or community? People are more likely to change if they think someone capable is leading the process or if they think that everyone else is changing. I guess the community point could be captured within dissatisfaction, but leadership seems to be missing.

What about competence? People are more willing to change if they believe they will be competent at the new behaviours. Maybe this is part of Inertia.

My other concern is the overlap between Inertia and Dissatisfaction. Are these variable orthogonal?

Maybe we need DxVxFxLxC>I recognising that any negative term on the left hand side is likely to undermine the change.

Reply
Andrew Campbell
20/2/2013 05:42:27 am

Crispin's five factors influencing technology acceptance can be linked to Arthur's model.
Relative Advantage will affect Dissatisfaction and vision
Compatibility, trialability and complexity all link to Inertia
Observability links to Dissatisfaction, Vision and First Steps

Reply
Arthur Lerner
20/2/2013 10:47:37 am

I originally tried to explicate both theory in general., and a change theory in particular. The former was deliberate despite how it added to length, and what I wrote was still more brief than full explanation. Let me clarify a few points in light of Andrew's comments. Nick asked about "your "theory" not "theories." Of course there are many theories of change, but given the "hierarchy"I opted for the most general one testable. I also noted that other theories may be more useful than DVF depending on specific circumstances. I mentioned a few. Diffusion of Innovation is another one, but it, too, is a more specific case that does not contradict the more general DVF>I in any way.

I think what Crispin wrote was both accurate and astute, including what he did not say. Note that the specific tendencies he mentioned (parts of a broader framework) are specific in at least two ways. First is that they are about the RATE of adoption, not the conditions to produce organizational change itself. Second, they are influences in the introducing change in TECHNOLOGY adoption, but - while useful - are not all essential to bringing about change in even that more restricted domain. Most of his points are excellent supplements to the general theory - nice to have, but not must have. Two of them are either peripheral to, or not applicable in terms of certain other forms of organizational change.

A key distinction is what I mentioned about ALL intentional desired human change, including that its component variables must be inclusive and operating at every level of the change from individual to societal. Many of diffusion of Innovation ideas (from Rogers, Lippitt, and others) depend more on individual change being aggregated rather than a system level change. They are certainly more individually salient even when the innovations are not technological (think classroom teaching, improvement in practices affecting individual athletic performance).

These are but a few examples, sufficient I hope to support my more general assertions.

As to other comments –

Linking to DVF>I, of course, is different than being part of it, and liking is usually beneficial when appropriate. Leadership and community are two such characteristics (although "community" is vague w/o modification). While I think leadership is necessary to sustain change, it is not necessary to start it. In certain issues of technology adoption, the changes that occur are almost leaderless (in the traditional notion of leadership, certainly in organizations). As an observation, despite coordinators, the Occupy movement had plenty of community but insufficiently strong or capable leadership except in process domains (e.g. "People's Microphone”).

I do think that sense of competence (individual and collective) is an individually reductive form of inertia.

The point about overlap is a good one. One of the reasons I changed the previous model by substituting Inertia for Resistance, was due to overlap. More, however, depending on how one wants to (de)construct the variables, one could confound D and V as well. What I think distinguishes the variables is their core essence, even if they have similar topics of concern. More than anything DVF is a process theory, and hence concerned with the flow of energy involved, not just between the variables, but - to a lesser extent - within them as well. Dissatisfaction beyond one's own behavior, for example, tends to be externally located in people's minds (whether accurate or not when subject to “objective” scrutiny), while Vision gains force by starting and growing as an internal and inclusive form of energy. Dissatisfaction as a "negative" is, in fact, highly unlikely to undermine change once openly expressed, as opposed to being like a negative number in terms of affecting the (admittedly subjective) value left of the inequality sign.

Much to think about, too little space to discuss further.

Reply
Michael Farrell
20/2/2013 11:53:19 pm

I like Per's imagery of the wall. My focus is more on organziations than on individuals, although individual coaching and change is a critical component of organizational change and development, don't you think? I believe that organizations - and by extension, people -- change only when it is more painful to stay the same. The deeper the change -- the higher and thicker the wall -- the more pain is going to be necessary to motivate and sustain the efforts to change. Great organizations do it right, rebuild reality as it were, and sustain those changes. Weak and bad organizations try, fail, declare a combination of victory and sour grapes, and continue to butt their heads happily against the wall. Wise agents, practicioners and champions of innovation, change and effectiveness pick their fights wisely and well.

Reply
Nick Wright
22/2/2013 05:00:53 am

Hi Michael and thanks for the notes.Yes, I would agree with you that coaching and change at an individual level can be a critical component of organisational change and development, especially since, at one level, an organisation is a dynamic, collective system of individuals.

It seems to me that moving away from pain can be a motivator for change, hence the 'burning platform' metaphor used by some change agents. In other cases, change can be motivated by a desire for a better future state, something even better than staying in the current state would allow.

I liked your comment that, ´'the deeper the change, the higher and thicker the wall.' I also liked your comment on organisations that fail that 'declare a combination of victory and sour grapes and continue to butt their heads happily against the wall.' :) I also agree with your good advice on picking fights wisely and well.

With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Geoffrey Morton-Haworth
21/2/2013 04:20:00 am

Nick, Barry. A huge subject stimulates many thoughts!

I must again reference Ioan Tenner's not-so-well-known work here. It speaks to all these issues: http://tenner.thinkhost.com/consult/art1.html

He reminds us of organizations' "Lamarckian burden". Fortunately people do not inherit the acquired characteristics of their forebears (I am not good at shooting people, although my Dad had to acquire these skills in order to survive in the Second World War). But organizations do inherit the acquired characteristics of their leadership... doing more of what accounted for their past success can cripple organizations when facing the new (think Higher Education).

When handling complexity and the unknown, he makes the case for "homeorhetic" (sustaining a steady state through permanent improvement and transformation) rather than "homeostatic" (traditional problem-solving) support.

My Powerhouse Museum experience provides an example of the former: http://yalaworld.net/Blog/tabid/171/EntryId/9/The-Sydney-Powerhouse-Museum-br-an-example-of-the-emergence-of-collective-intelligence.aspx

Reply
Karen Bailey link
21/2/2013 05:21:09 am

To add to the debate on the importance of relationships – I would like to add this extract from a recent piece of research on Change, discourse and Mediation

“The Acting HR Director and the ‘Grievance King’, both played significant roles in shaping the meaning of mediation and in fixing that meaning with other social actors in the conjuncture. The implication of this is that we cannot simply look at structural influences on discourse, or even the collective ‘views’ of groups as the defining elements in shaping meaning, we must also acknowledge the contingent influence of specific people at specific times. Although this makes for uncomfortable ‘theorizing’, as it limits generalizing about particular phenomena, it seems more realistic and still allows us to identify political processes that may be evident in other contexts.”

:-)

Reply
Nick Wright
21/2/2013 10:30:20 am

Hi Karen and thanks for sharing such a thought-provoking quotation. If I understand it well, it sounds like it is highlighting the personal-phenomenological aspects of meaning making as well as the specific influences of specific people in relationships in specific circumstances at specific times.

It reminds me of what some refer to as 'dynamic complexity', especially since every individual in a social system experiences shifting perspectives, ego states, moods etc. This means that the same individuals interacting in slightly different circumstances can result in different patterns of influence, thought, behaviour etc.

With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Rick Straker CPT
23/2/2013 10:24:47 am

My model for change is based on Six Boxes Performance Thinking -- an approach to understanding and improving human performance.

It:

- defines the 3 components of performance in simple terms
- provides 6 categories for thinking through all influences on performance
- provides a flexible "logic" for understanding and changing performance.

And because it's in plain English, and based on a couple of simple models, it can be learned and applied by all stakeholders of change, not just highly-skilled consultants.

You can learn about it at www.SixBoxes.com. There's a CM-specific white paper on the site: "Implementation Planning and Change Management with the Six Boxes Approach."

Reply
Nick Wright
23/2/2013 10:35:37 am

Hi Rick and thanks for the note. I hadn't come across the six boxes approach before and found its emphasis on outputs and outcomes (results) over activities interesting. Do you have any examples of applying this model that you would be happy to share to give a sense of what this approach could look like in practice? With thanks and best wishes. Nick

Reply
Knut Moskaug
23/2/2013 10:25:42 am

First I'd like to say Hi to Per. Long time no see....
As I guess Per's view comes from Gestalt Theory, I'd make it even simpler (though I like the imagery of the wall):
Gestalt rediscoverer Fritz Perls (he actually never claimed to be the founder himself) said:
When one accept what is, - what is changes!
This statement was taken further by Arnold Beisser in 1970:
Change occurs when one becomes what he is; not when he tries to become what he is not!

So as a gestalt psychotherapist I intervene by exploring what really is, and accepting these facts. If it works? Yes! :-)

Reply
Nick Wright
23/2/2013 10:41:59 am

Hi Knut and thanks for the link to Gestalt theory. Yes, there is a strange paradox in Gestalt that change emerges through greater awareness of and attention to what is in the here and now. I liked your quotations from Perls and Beissner. I would be very interested to hear more about your work as a Gestalt pschotherapist. Do you have any examples you would be willing to share? With thanks and best wishes. Nick

Reply
Knut Moskaug
24/2/2013 12:32:09 am

I used to work with a telephone marketing company. They rang up other companies to sell copy paper, pens, etc. A small amount of what the customers paid went to charity.
The employees were sitting together three by three. What often happened was this: When John, Jane and June were calling companies, They could all have several "No-responses" from her customers but suddenly June could make a sale; She had a "Yes-response".
When Jane and John heard this they lost their focus starting to copy how June talked, how she used her voice etc. in hope of having "yes-responses" for their own.
I worked with them for a little more than two years, both as a group and also individually. My focus was entirely that June was the expert on being June, and that John and Jane would be experts in being themselves and leave June. They could never become June. I focused on what each of them were good at, supporting them in not only to be good at it, but how to become experts on being themselves.
In two years the company increased sales by 30%. Of course there may be other influences as well, still the management gave me credit for the result. :-)

Nick Wright
24/2/2013 12:38:37 am

Hi Knut and thanks for sharing such an inspiring and honest example. I had similar experiences to John and Jane on a Gestalt-orientated coaching course. At first, I tried to copy who I saw as inspiring and expert Gestalt practitioners but it undermined my self-confidence and interfered with the coaching process. My supervisor encouraged me to be more myself, to trust that what I saw, knew and understood about Gestalt would somehow subconsciously influence my practice. As a consequence, I felt more free, more engaged with the client and the impact of the coaching increased significantly. I wrote up a subsequent Gestalt coaching series with a leader in this article which may be of interest: http://www.nick-wright.com/just-do-it.html. With best wishes. Nick

Knut Moskaug
26/2/2013 01:26:59 am

True! An action will create a re-action. Very simple. And from a phenomenological view point we do not know what the re-action will be. So we have to move away from Freudian causal thinking. If the action is to explore what is in the situation, and to accept what is, also perhaps enhance "what is", something new has to arise as a polarity to the "one state", and then change occours.

Dino Ragazzo
27/2/2013 11:23:31 am

I'm happy that such a discussion opens a focus on Beisser's Pradoxical theory of change.While the phrase looks smart ("change occurs when one fully accepts what is") I must admit that it is very ambiguous to me at the same time.For example when I feedback a 360° to a client, I am often confronted to this question: what is the specific "what is" that will lead to change?
Usually, the "what is " that comes out quite instinctively is " Wahoo! I'm not as smart as what I expected" or " I feel upset by this feedback" or any sort of negative feeling.
It is some times not an easy job to encourage the client to become the Asshole his 360° seems to describe...

Knut Moskaug
27/2/2013 11:24:53 am

I work a lot with overweight people. The change does not occure if they accept being overweight/obese.
To "become what one is" merely means in this case to allow oneself to be angry when feeling angry, to be happy when feeling happy, to be sad when feeling sad. My experience is that when people become more of what they are, they don't need to eat away their feelings as they in fact do when they need chocolate for comfort and so on....

Dino Ragazzo
27/2/2013 11:25:54 am

I understand that, from your perspective, the "what one is " that leads to change would be to be the "my own feelings acknowledger". You seem to infer that some feelings are appropriate for change while others are not. That is precisely where I am in trouble : what is the specific "what is" that will lead to change? How to help the client "filter" -if any - consistentl?

Evert van der Weide
27/2/2013 11:27:04 am

I have the experience that when I see what is in a clear light with acceptance and love, because that is what is, that changing comes by themself. But I have no experience with overweight. The reality is that we need somebody to support by looking to what is that is, because we have not the good mirror in our selves by the negative way of thinking about our selves what we have learned.

Pat McLagan
24/2/2013 11:07:18 am

Hi, Everybody. What I'm about to say is not an attempt to sell anything -- but to share. A few years back, frustrated that there was too much theory and not enough accessible grounded or empirical work that looked at the relationship between change practices and results, I hired some researchers to comb credible studies and then we created a power point pack that lays out the conclusions in a format for practitioners and managers -- anyone interested in doing a better job of leading change. I'm happy to share that set of slides (with notes) with anyone who requests it as long as you give attribution. There is really good research out there, but unfortunately it isn't well packaged for use in the real world. If it helps bridge this gap between research and practice, that will be very satisfying to me. Contact me if you would like a copy. patmclagan@mclaganint.com.

Reply
Nick Wright
24/2/2013 11:08:42 am

Many thanks for the kind offer of the slide set with notes, Pat. I would be very interested to receive a copy. My email address is info@nick-wright.com. With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Dave Jamieson
24/2/2013 01:18:07 pm

Hi Pat.
Love your perspective and offer. More valid research (from past and present conditions) would scale down all the commercial noise selling change models. While I have spent alot of time reviewing models and theories, I find in reality there are common principles or core concepts that surface across most (e.g., involving people affected, including voice of people with stakes, remebering systems properties when trying to change anything, etc.). I would also appreciate your slides.

Reply
Al Watts
25/2/2013 12:16:20 am

That's a great offer, Pat; thanks. I think that you have my email, and would also appreciate a copy. I'm glad to find this discussion; I just had a similar conversation with some colleagues about the plethora of change models out there and what works, and will suggest that they join this conversation.

Reply
William Potapchuk
26/2/2013 01:29:51 am

I'd love a copy as well. Thanks!

Reply
Enrique Mercadillo Madero
24/2/2013 11:10:48 am

Change is a necessity yet is not what we are looking for.
as Per said, we have to face the wall.
We can´t control change but we use most of our vital energy trying to stop occurring in us.
The we project it out side. I think that in our culture (occidental way of thinking and live) we are looking for change outside but not inside, maybe that´s why everything we made is going faster and faster.
Per´s wall may be finding change inside on each and every one of us.

Reply
Nick Wright
7/3/2013 11:52:46 pm

Hi Enrique and thanks for the note.

I found the relationship you describe between internal and external dynamics of change very interesting and helpful, including how we may project an internal need for change onto our external environment. Sometimes it feels easier to face and address change in the environment than to face and address it within ourselves.

Perhaps a question we could ask, therefore, when seeing the need for change in the environment is, 'How does the issue I perceive in the environment resonate with or reflect an issue I am not perceiving within myself, my team or my organisation?' With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Evert van der Weide
24/2/2013 11:11:49 am

Change happens after an action for example "You throw a stone in the water and the ring flow out around" or plant a seed in the ground and what happens? After the action you have to le it go

Reply
Nick Wright
7/3/2013 11:59:05 pm

Hi Evert and thanks for the note. Your images made me wonder how far an act of leadership is to inspire or initiate a change without trying to manage or control it. Perhaps that's a key difference between a 'movement' and an 'organisation'? With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Evert van der Weide
8/3/2013 04:32:43 am

When you want have a good way of working in organisations then you have to give the trust and the responsebillity to other people. When you give the seed to the people let them work with it. And communicate with them like you give water to the seeds for to grow better. Make a living organisation with motivated people and not a controlled system. Make a nice place to work. You create your own problems when you are fixated on the changes, because you become a big controller and not a changemaker.

Helen Lancaster
26/2/2013 03:41:02 am

I think it best to keep as simple as possible:-

Have a clear vision; adopt good processes; ensure capability to sustain change; have resources to implement and embed the change, communicate to ensure clarity, ongoing motivation and buy in.

Above all, don't underestimate the human aspects of change, and ensure any change model or plan works with hearts and minds. It is how we think of change that drives our individual, team and therefore organisational behaviours that make change stick to make it a successful one.

Reply
Nick Wright
8/3/2013 12:09:07 am

Hi Helen and thanks for the note. I agree with your emphasis on 'keep it as simple as possible' and your comments on 'hearts and minds'. I also liked your emphasis on 'it is how we think'. The most successful changes I've seen and been part of have been where those leading and involved have successfully co-created narratives or constructs they found convincing, compelling, inspiring and engaging. This links, I think, with your comment on vision. With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Debbie Nicol
1/3/2013 06:27:22 am

My theory of change is based on connectivity. Many organizational changes I've lead or witnessed have not reached the desired success, and the one commonality to them all is a lack of connectivity - the leader with himself, the leader with others, the team with the change or the change with the environment. If we can work on connectivity first, I've seen reduced fear, resistance and failure, with greater depth to the change itself. The model of 'embers' refers to this @ www.embersoftheworld.com

Reply
Nick Wright
8/3/2013 12:21:55 am

Hi Debbie and thanks for the note and the link to the 'embers' website. I really like your comments on 'connectivity'. It reminds me of the notion and importance of 'contact' in Gestalt psychology when applied personally, interpersonally and systemically. With best wishes. Nick

Reply
Nisha Ninan
8/8/2013 10:22:12 am

Nice article. Too often change is seen as the new mantra....asking why is more important. To see the big picture and inspire is key to making change meaningful. What does the change achieve....

Reply
Madge Xue
12/8/2013 05:30:05 am

I applied a very straightforward ADKAR model by Jeff Hiatt to facilitated leadership behaviour change in the organisation. My learning is that it is relatively easier to get people to buy in this model and go through the awareness phase, yet it is challenging to turn it to the deep desire which is imperative to sustain the change afterwards. And it needs real determination and persistent in the reinforce phase to embed the new behaviours. Hope this helps prompt more thoughts.

Reply
Madhavi Mehta
12/8/2013 05:31:41 am

For me it is Lewin and Schein. True change is painful, at least to begin with. I have been a part of a change initiative where we did use Lewin's three stage model. After successful organization-wide unfreezing and movement, refreezing is often difficult particularly if there is a change in committed top leadership.

Reply
final year projects centers in chennai link
24/5/2014 05:01:25 am

Java is a general-purpose, concurrent, class-based, object-oriented computer programming language that is specifically designed to have as few implementation dependencies as possible

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    ​Nick Wright

    ​I'm a psychological coach, trainer and OD consultant. Curious to discover how can I help you? ​Get in touch!

    Picture
    Like what you read? Simply enter your email address below to receive regular blog updates!
    Subscribe to Blog
    Picture
    Picture


    ​Archives

    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011

    Categories

    All
    Abc
    Ability
    Accountability
    Achievement
    Act
    Action
    Action Learning
    Activism
    Adaptability
    Adaptive
    Advent
    Adventure
    Africa
    Agency
    Agile
    Ambiguity
    Angle
    Anticipation
    Anxiety
    Appraisal
    Appreciation
    Appreciative
    Appreciative Inquiry
    Approach
    Argyris
    Asia
    Assumption
    Assumptions
    Asylum
    Attachment
    Attention
    Attitude
    Audience
    Authenticity
    Authority
    Autonomy
    Avoidance
    Awareness
    Behaviour
    Being
    Belief
    Beliefs
    Bias
    Bible
    Body Language
    Boundaries
    Brainstorming
    Brand
    Calling
    Care
    Career
    Censorship
    Challenge
    Change
    Character
    Charity
    Child
    Choice
    Choose
    Christ
    Christian
    Christmas
    Clarity
    Client
    Climate
    Coach
    Coaching
    Coactive
    Cognition
    Cognitive
    Cognitive Behavioural
    Commitment
    Communication
    Community
    Compassion
    Competence
    Competencies
    Complexity
    Concepts
    Confidence
    Conflict
    Confluence
    Congruence
    Consciousness
    Construct
    Constructs
    Construe
    Consultancy
    Contact
    Content
    Context
    Contracting
    Contribution
    Control
    Conversation
    Corruption
    Counselling
    Counterintiution
    Counterintuition
    Countertransference
    Courage
    Craziness
    Creativity
    Credibility
    Crisis
    Critical Consciousness
    Critical Reflection
    Critical Reflective Practice
    Critical Reflexivity
    Critical Thinking
    Critique
    Cross
    Cross Culture
    Cross-culture
    Culture
    Curiosity
    Customer Care
    Customers
    Customer Service
    Death
    Deception
    Decision
    Deconstruction
    Defence
    Defences
    Deferred Gratification
    Definition
    Delusion
    Democracy
    Depression
    Determination
    Development
    Deviance
    Deviant
    Diagnosis
    Disaster
    Discernment
    Disclosure
    Discovery
    Discrimination
    Disruptive
    Dissent
    Dissident
    Dissonance
    Distinctiveness
    Distortion
    Diversity
    Dream
    Dynamic
    Dynamics
    Easter
    Ecology
    Edge
    Edi
    Education
    Effectiveness
    Efficiency
    Ego State
    Eliciting
    Emergence
    Emotion
    Emotional
    Emotional Intelligence
    Empathy
    Empowerment
    Encouragement
    Energy
    Engagement
    Environment
    Equality
    Eternity
    Ethics
    Ethiopia
    Evaluation
    Evidence
    Evocative
    Existential
    Existentialism
    Expectation
    Expectations
    Experience
    Experiment
    Experimentation
    Exploration
    Explore
    Exposure
    Facilitation
    Faith
    Fear
    Feedback
    Feeling
    Feminism
    Figure
    Filter
    Fit
    Flashback
    Focus
    Forgiveness
    Framework
    Freedom
    Freud
    Fun
    Future
    Gender
    Geopolitical
    Geopolitics
    Gestalt
    Global
    Goal
    Goals
    God
    Gospel
    Grace
    Grief
    Grit
    Ground
    Group
    Guidance
    Healing
    Health
    Hear
    Heidegger
    Hero
    Hope
    Human
    Human Givens
    Humanity
    Human Resources
    Human Rights
    Humility
    Humour
    Hybrid
    Hypotheses
    Hypothesis
    Icon
    Ideation
    Identity
    Image
    Imagination
    Impact
    Impostor
    Inclusion
    Independence
    Influence
    INGO
    Initiative
    Injustice
    Innovation
    Inquiry
    Insecurity
    Insight
    Inspiration
    Instinct
    Integrity
    Intention
    Interdependence
    Interference
    International
    Interpretation
    Intimacy
    Introversion
    Intuition
    Invisible
    Jargon
    Jesus
    Journey
    Jungle
    Justice
    Keys
    Knowing
    Knowledge
    Labels
    Language
    Lateral Thinking
    Leader
    Leadership
    Learner
    Learning
    Lesson
    Liberal
    Life
    Light
    Listening
    Logic
    Loss
    Love
    Management
    Manager
    Marathon
    Matrix
    Mbti
    Meaning
    Media
    Mediation
    Meetings
    Memory
    Mentoring
    Merit
    Metaphor
    Metaphysic
    Mindfulness
    Miracle
    Mirroring
    Misfit
    Mission
    Mode
    Morality
    Motivation
    Mystery
    Narrative
    Nazis
    Need
    Negotiation
    Neo-Nazi
    Networking
    News
    New Year
    Norm
    Norms
    Noticing
    Online
    Operations
    Opportunity
    Oppression
    Organisation
    Organisation Develoment
    Organisation Development
    Origin
    Pace
    Panic
    Paradigm
    Paradox
    Partnership
    Passion
    Pastoral
    Pattern Matching
    Peace
    People
    Perception
    Perfectionism
    Performance
    Perseverance
    Personal Constructs
    Personal Leadership
    Person Centred
    Perspective
    Phenomenology
    Phenomenon
    Philippines
    Philosophy
    Physicality
    Plan
    Plans
    Plato
    Play
    Plot
    Polarity
    Policy
    Politics
    Poor
    Positive
    Positive Psychology
    Posture
    Potential
    Potential#
    Poverty
    Power
    Practice
    Pragmatism
    Praxis
    Prayer
    Preference
    Preferences
    Prepare
    Presence
    Principles
    Priorities
    Priority
    Privilege
    Proactivity
    Problem Solving
    Process
    Professional
    Progressive
    Projection
    Projects
    Prompt
    Propaganda
    Protection
    Protest
    Providence
    Provocative
    Psychoanalysis
    Psychodynamic
    Psychodynamics
    Psychology
    Psychometrics
    Psychotherapy
    Purpose
    Quality
    Questions
    Race
    Radical
    Rational
    Rationale
    Rationalisation
    Rationality
    Reality
    Reason
    Reasoning
    Reconciliation
    Recruitment
    Reflect
    Reflection
    Reflective Practice
    Reflexivity
    Reframing
    Refugee
    Refugees
    Relationship
    Relationships
    Release
    Religion
    Representation
    Rescue
    Research
    Resilience
    Resonance
    Resourcefulness
    Respect
    Responsibility
    Responsive
    Responsiveness
    Revelation
    Reward
    Rights
    Risk
    Role
    Role Model
    Rosabeth Moss-kanter
    Rules
    Sabbath
    Satire
    Satnav
    Saviour
    Schemata
    School
    Science
    Secure Base
    Security
    See
    Selection
    Selective Attention
    Self
    Sense Making
    Senses
    Sensitivity
    Serendipity
    Servant
    Shadow
    Significance
    Silence
    Simplicity
    Sin
    Skills
    Snake
    Social Construct
    Social Construction
    Social Constructionism
    Social Media
    Social Psychology
    Socrates
    Solution Focused
    Solutions
    Solutions Focus
    Solutions-focus
    Space
    Speed
    Spirit
    Spiritual
    Spirituality
    Stance
    Stealth
    Stereotype
    Stereotypes
    Story
    Strategic
    Strategy
    Strengths
    Stress
    Stretch
    Structure
    Struggle
    Stuck
    Style
    Subconscious
    Subjectivity
    Success
    Suffering
    Supervision
    Support
    Survival
    Sustainability
    Symbol
    Symbolism
    Systems
    Systems Thinking
    TA
    Tactical
    Tactics
    Talent
    Teacher
    Teaching
    Team
    Teamwork
    Teenage
    Theology
    Theory
    Therapy
    Thinking
    Thought
    Time
    Touch
    Toys
    Traction
    Trade
    Tradition
    Training
    Transactional Analysis
    Transference
    Transformation
    Transition
    Transitional Object
    Trauma
    Trust
    Truth
    Uncertainty
    Unexpected
    Vallues
    Value
    Valued
    Values
    Violence
    Visibility
    Vision
    Voice
    VUCA
    Vulnerability
    Vulnerable
    Waiting
    War
    Wealth
    Weird
    Wellbeing
    Will
    Willingness
    Window
    Wisdom
    Wonder
    Words
    World
    Worth
    Youth
    Zoom

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
  • Testimonials
  • Articles
    • Organisations and leadership
    • Learning and development
    • Coaching and counselling
  • Blog
  • e-Resources
  • News
  • Contact