I was putting together examples of change management methods for a potential client and realized that there are really three types that have different applications:

The first type is the large scale change process.  For example, Lewin’s Unfreeze > Change > Refreeze concept, or John Kotter’s eight-stage method in his book Leading Change.  The large scale change process tells the global organizational steps to take, such as building a sense of urgency, developing a vision, or creating small wins to gain momentum.  They provide guidance and set expectations for how change unfolds effectively in an organization.

The second type is the analysis tool, which helps you decide what needs changing.  Force-field analysis, in which you examine the forces pushing for and against change, is one example.  Gap analysis is another. Surveys and assessments help identify the areas you need to focus on. In general, these tools help you identify or diagnose the barriers you need to overcome, or the strengths on which you should build.

The third type of change management method helps you overcome the barriers to change.  They are situation specific or topical.  For example, using the principles in Patrick Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team might help fix an ineffective leadership team.  These methods are more prescriptive in nature and help you determine how to make specific improvements.  Once you have identified the problem, use these tools to create the small (and not so small) wins.

My Irresistible Change Guide combines all three methods in one practical toolkit.  Within a unique large-scale change process, the toolkit includes analysis tools and provides step-by-step methods for overcoming the most common barriers to change.

What tools are you using to manage change?

Please use add a comment to chime in.

If you enjoyed this post, you might also like:

• A Way to Implement Change That Really Works
• Eight Fundamental Ingredients of a Successful Change Initiative
• Tips for Leading a Successful Transformation

The Theory of Constraints (TOC) is a model originally developed by Dr. Eli Goldratt and made famous in one of the most-read manufacturing books, The Goal.  Last week I attended a presentation at the Organization Change Alliance by Dr. James Cox, retired professor at University of Georgia Terry School of Business, who has worked directly with Dr. Goldratt and is one of the leading experts on TOC.  He brought to light a concept rooted in industrial engineering as an organization change methodology.

The Theory of Constraints says that in a production system, to improve efficiency, find the weakest link – your constraint – and then maximize its performance.  Keep that step in the process busy at all times to maximize output for the entire process.  Next, modify that step so that it is no longer the constraint.  When the next constraint pops up (because there will always be one), then maximize it until you can eliminate it.

The thinking process used to eliminate barriers was presented as a way to implement change.  Despite the 2-hour presentation, he was only able to skim the surface.

The TOC thinking process consisted of three major steps:

1. What to change
2. What to change to
3. How to cause the change

What to Change

Dr. Cox defined that a constraint is “anything that blocks or limits one from achieving its goal.”  One of the tools used to find what to change is the “Evaporating Cloud.”  He showed us the following diagram:

The purpose of the Evaporating Cloud is to identify a conflict, or barrier, to reaching the objective.  The “needs” are both required to satisfy the objective, but the “wants” cannot coexist.  Take this example of a barrier to patient care in a hospital emergency room:

To maximize patient care in a hospital emergency room, patients must not wait long to see the doctor, and once they see the doctor, patients need focused care – however long it takes.  These two “needs” are satisfied by two conflicting “wants:”  to spend time with patients and to have quick patient visits.

What to Change To

To determine what to change to, solve the Evaporating Cloud by challenging all the underlying assumptions (until the cloud evaporates).  For example:

• How might the “wants” coexist?
• What other ways can the “needs” be satisfied?
• In what other ways might the objective be achieved?

How to Cause The Change

One of the methods Dr. Cox  presented on determining how to cause the change was the Prerequisite Tree, also known as the Ambitious Target Tree.  Given a desired future state, ask “Why can’t we do that?” Next, map out ideas to overcome all the obstacles.  After that, ask, “If we eliminate all these obstacles, can we do this?”  If not, continue building the tree until all barriers are mapped.

There are a number of other TOC thinking processes that were briefly mentioned.  Wikipedia contains a complete list.

Last weekend I attended a regular monthly meeting of the Organization Change Alliance, and listened to a presentation by the COO of the Atlanta Community Food Bank, Rob Johnson. Rob discussed his experience with Asset Based Community Development, or ABCD, a methodology that blends organization development theory with improvement of the community at large.

Rob listed the following basic principles of ABCD:

1. Focus on Gifts: Every person and group (and community) has existing gifts and abilities – social capital or assets – that can be identified and used to build from within stronger communities.
2. Associational Life: Groups of people voluntarily coming together to make a difference (vs. systems of well-resourced professional services) are more likely to provide a critical sense of care, belonging.
3. Power in Our Hands: Sustainable community improvements occur when citizens – not waiting on professionals or elected leaders – discover their own power to act and begin producing their desired future.

It was fascinating stuff, which opened my eyes to a use of change management techniques that I hadn’t considered before. It also creates interesting possibilities for “grass roots” organizational change.