6 CHANGE ACTIONS AND PARADOXES

6 CHANGE WITH IMPACT. THOUGHTS AND PARADOXES.
Action
Behaviour, activity, central term in
American behaviourism from the
early 20th century where an action
is an organised and focused pattern
of movements; later extended to also
comprise facial expressions, gestures
and written or oral statements.

IMPLEMENT CONSULTING GROUP 7
A couple of years ago, a knowledge-intensive Scandinavian
company surveyed its employees’ familiarity with the
company’s strategy and the extent to which they agreed
that the strategy had been implemented. The responses
could be grouped into three well-defined categories. Those
who believed that the strategy was both familiar to all and
implemented, those who were familiar with the strategy,
but did not think it had been implemented, and finally those
who were not familiar with it and, thus, were not qualified
to comment on its implementation. The first group was top
management. The second consisted of the members of the
project group which had been responsible for developing and
implementing the strategy. The third group included, by and
large, all remaining employees in the company – and this is not
a joke!
This example brings us to an interesting point in relation to the
burning platform, which is a core concept in classic change
management. The analogy originates from an oil drilling rig
that caught fire, and where the only survivors were those who
defied all regulations and leapt off the platform into a foaming
sea 40 metres below. When asked afterwards why they had
jumped, they answered that they felt they had no alternative.
In a positive sense, this is the situation we ideally want to
create in any change project. When everyone can see that
there is only one way to go, you ensure both the direction and
pace of the project – or do you?
In an ideal world maybe, but not in reality. Therefore, we will
venture to challenge the sequence and scope of the built-
in logic; take no action until a “sense of urgency” prevails
throughout the organisation. Above all, it is utopian to believe
Action as a means
of communication in
change processes

that it is possible, all in one go, to instil exactly the same
picture of what is important throughout the organisation.
Change projects have come to a standstill before they ever got
started on that account.
There are situations where action is the most direct or only
viable way of creating awareness and changing attitudes.
Within e.g. Lean, there are many examples of small simple
activities having created tangible pictures of the potentials
offered by change and, hence, of having acted as a catalyst
for the subsequent roll-out across the entire organisation.
Conversely, there are plenty of examples of companies
agitating for, threatening and appealing for change incessantly
for years without even remotely achieving the same effect.
Finally, a “reverse start” offers a far more reflective approach
to the concept of importance. Certainly, importance is a
precondition for success, but the path to it is winding, and
there will undoubtedly be many different perceptions and
explanations of what is important. Here, it is crucial to make
room for doubt and, thus, make change meaningful to as many
as possible.
We know it sounds trivial, but it is vital to seek and ensure
appreciation of the importance of change – in the organisa
tion and among all involved. Not top management’s explicit
priorities, nor a “burning” necessity, but purely and simply
the individual’s understanding that what we are talking about
really matters. This often entails that we will have to modify
what we are focusing on and talking about.
The good news is that our focus will probably be more “right”
in relation to the organisation’s strategy, mission and vision,
and the best news is that what we end up focusing on stands
an excellent chance of actually being implemented.

IMPLEMENT CONSULTING GROUP 9IMPLEMENT CONSULTING GROUP 9
Action
When you initiate action
early in a change process,
you’ll be accused of
not having done your
analysis and planning
thoroughly enough
– do it anyway!

Agility (from Latin agilis);
quick in movement, nimble;
mentally quick or acute.
Agility

The speed of change is ever increasing. Consequently, we must
be far more agile to cope today than just a few years ago. This
is a fact which is dealt with in two recommendable books:
Fast Strategy by Yves Doz and The Upside of Turbulence by
Donald Sull. The overall conclusion of the books, to which we
fully agree, is an increased need for: 1) strategic sensitivity to
change in our surrounding world, 2) common overall objectives
and 3) the ability to reallocate resources flexibly across
organisational boundaries.
This is easier said than done since we are up against strong
forces: Above all, the human nature and an antiquated, but
well-established and, thus, safe way of organising ourselves.
Particularly the last part is a hard nut to crack as there are
quite many privileges and just as much prestige at stake.
A good example is the healthcare sector whose self-perception
is based on trade groups and medical specialties. One single
patient pathway easily involves more than 30 different
specialties, departments, functions and trade groups, which
are to interact efficiently to achieve a coherent and positive
experience for the patient. The problem is, however, that no
strategic decision has been made concerning the responsibility
for creating this coherence. The optimal patient pathway is,
consequently, not concretised as KPIs in the departments
involved, and this, together with sharply defined specialist
boundaries, makes it difficult to move around resources across
departments. One dilemma almost stumbles over the other.
Why would the individual doctor e.g. want to focus on all
elements of a patient pathway when he is measured on only a
small part of it? Or why would a department optimise a patient
pathway, which would only result in even more pressure on
We must be agile
to survive

that department’s own budget?
An obvious solution is to change the organisational structure
together with the management structure, so that these are
built around the needs and overall pathways of the patients.
Similarly, it would be obvious to think in broad terms and make
the practice sector and municipal home care form part of the
same organisational and management structure as the hospital
sector. Most people in the sector can agree on this. The basis,
however, for taking this step is simply non-existent as it is
today. As the above examples illustrate, it is not a strategic
focus on the needs of the patients that prevails, rather much
too narrow financial, political and professional considerations.
As is, by the way, the case in many other organisations, private
as well as public.
The speed of change makes entirely new demands on
how we organise ourselves. That is why Doz and Sull hit us
where it hurts the most. For strategic agility is inevitable to
survival, but also contrary to nature – both at a human and an
organisational level.

When you design and
implement a truly agile
organisation, you disrupt
well-established power
bases and privileges,
ultimately also your own
– do it anyway!
Agility

Atmosphere (sentiment) i.a. means
the air or climate in a specific place,
in a specific room. In continuation
of this meaning, the term is often
used metaphorically about the
atmosphere present in a specific place
or the atmosphere which surrounds
a person, object or institution.
Atmosphere

One of our gurus, former Harvard professor and author of
the book The Trusted Advisor David Maister, once said: “I’ve
attended the best American and British universities and
business schools and learnt a lot of good stuff. The only thing I
didn’t learn was that the world is full of people...”.
We believe that this is an incredibly precise way of conveying
the difference between theory and practice when people
are to be relocated and organisations developed. In this
connection, there is one key concept in particular we would
like to draw your attention to – atmosphere. Atmosphere is not
a word that occurs as frequently as change management in the
average textbook, probably because many – both researchers
and executives – perceive atmosphere as something
undocumented and uncontrollable that “just arises”. Whether
that atmosphere is good or bad, intense or indifferent is more
a matter of chance than the result of conscious action.
But can atmosphere be controlled? Yes, it can. If in doubt, just
think of all those times you created the wrong atmosphere
unintentionally. We have all been there – it is worringly
easy. But if that is the case, then it must also be possible to
create the right atmosphere. And note that we are referring
on purpose to the right atmosphere rather than a positive
atmosphere! It might just as well be a serious, energetic,
despairing or even an outright crisis atmosphere. It all depends
on what we want to achieve.
Two core elements are involved in controlling atmosphere.
First of all, there is the preparation and planning of a script
and tools suitable for the situation. What atmosphere are
we after, and how do we create it deliberately? E.g. through
Control the
atmosphere to
create business

dialogue, involvement and change of pace. Secondly, there is
the ability to seize the unforeseeable – that will always arise no
matter how much we plan – and use it positively. Many years of
experience in carrying out large change projects have taught
us that carefully orchestrated “disturbances” are a highly
effective tool when creating the right atmosphere.
Try to recall the prevailing atmosphere in a few decisive
situations at e.g. a board meeting, management meeting, in
the strategy project or at the general staff meeting that either
went well or badly. Would they have turned out differently
if the atmosphere had been intense rather than relaxed, or
humorous rather than serious? Yes, most likely, which makes
it twice as frustrating that atmosphere is such an intangible to
many of us who hail from the traditional education system.
Here, we have learnt that when we are to communicate
something or make an important decision, we need to work
focusedly and systematically on producing well-structured
reports, often based on a rational problem analysis and
subsequent conclusion. This is also both appropriate and
important because it is the very basis for our credibility.
However, it is just not enough to know WHAT we need to say.
We also need to know exactly WHY and HOW to say it. We
have to get used to the fact that it is necessary to allocate
resources to preparing the tools that support the purpose
of the presentation. Otherwise, we risk standing – once
again – in the PowerPoint syndrome’s gloomy auditorium
where we ourselves have reduced the people we are trying
to communicate with to impersonal silhouettes. Where is the
atmosphere in that?

When you work
with atmosphere
and deliberately
create “appropriate
disturbances”, you’ll
probably be feeling
awkward and way out of
your comfort zone
– do it anyway!
Atmosphere

Authentic (from Greek authentikos:
‘truthfulness, reliability’); genuine;
true; trustworthy; reliable.
Authenticity

The authentic
manager makes
mistakes
If, as a manager, you are brutally honest about a strategic
change, you risk that parts of, or the entire basis for, the
change is called into question, or that it becomes evident
that there are things you do not know about the forthcoming
change. You also risk creating unease in the organisation,
and, not least, you run the risk of putting yourself and your
authority as a manager on the line.
To that we have only one thing to say: Do it anyway. Because
authenticity, or having the courage to be true to yourself and
your surroundings, is a prerequisite for building trust in the
change.
So, what is trust? The author of The Trusted Advisor, former
Harvard professor David Maister, has introduced a simple
equation for what builds trust. According to the equation,
trust is a function of credibility, reliability, intimacy and self-
orientation. The equation corresponds well with our own
experience of which top managers are capable of building
trust in the changes they are spearheading. And, moreover, it
is a brilliant illustration of trust vanishing like dew before the
sun if credibility, reliability or intimacy is absent, or the self-
orientation is too pronounced.
No doubt many ambitious managers would be surprised to
learn that they do not enjoy the trust of those around them
in spite of their professional competences, in spite of keeping
all agreements they make and in spite of taking the lead in
change projects. If they lack empathy or seek to downplay
that their commitment is driven by personal career objectives
and stock options, their intentions will always be called into
question.

This failure to appreciate what trust is may be the reason why
there are still quite many managers who apparently believe
they are better than other people. We have all met them, either
privately where they constantly entertain us about their own
outstanding merits, or at work where they carefully guard a
reputation as the omniscient leader who is never wrong. In
both situations, we are left wondering how in the world they
managed to get as far as they have. Fortunately, this race of
managers is on the verge of extinction. We live in a knowledge
society, and no matter how disagreeable it may be to admit,
it is a fact that many employees are both smarter and more
competent than the manager.
Try to think about it. You are an employee of a large company
facing a major restructuring process initiated by management.
You can see a number of uncertainties and risks, and,
hopefully, also a few upsides. Who would you trust most?
The manager who brushes off your doubts by signalling total
control or the one who addresses the uncertainties by coming
clean about the fact that he himself does not have all the
answers, and that he is well aware that the plan may not be
perfect, but is as good as it gets with the knowledge currently
available.
Managers who succeed in creating change are honest and
humble towards the scope of the change project and – not
least – towards the consequences for those affected by the
change. 2,000 years ago, Jesus said: “Whoever exalts himself
shall be humbled; whoever humbles himself shall be exalted”.
Food for thought – not least for those of us with managerial
responsibilities.

Authenticity
When you are honest
about the mistakes you’ll
inevitably be making,
you risk putting yourself
and your authority as a
leader on the line
– do it anyway!

Something or someone taking
on a new shape, character,
behaviour etc.
Change

Change
for change’s
sake
Never change a winning team is a philosophy that many of us
support. We rarely question its truth because it makes so much
sense at an intuitive level. In the world of sports, countless
top coaches swear by it. For instance, this has been Morten
Olsen’s mantra for his entire career as chief coach of the
Danish national soccer team, with concepts such as typerende
(typicality) and automatismer (automatisms) creeping into our
vocabulary.
At Implement, we have always had issues with repetition.
It was, therefore, an exhilarating experience when Freek
Vermeulen recently visited, and we had the opportunity to
hear his lecture “Change for Change’s Sake”. Vermeulen,
along with Donald Sull and several others, is part of a group
of brilliant up-and-coming professors from London Business
School who have challenged and inspired us in a wide range
of areas within strategic transformation. The message of his
lecture, which can be found in an article of the same name
in Harvard Business Review, June 2010, is that it is actually
extremely dangerous for an organisation only to make changes
in times of crisis.
Rather, Vermeulen argues that every company should
implement organisational changes periodically, even when
there is no apparent reason to do so. This is because the
process is, among other things, a good way to create new
networks and boost employees’ understanding and knowledge
of customers, products and services. Another interesting
phenomenon is that old connections and relations survive
across new formal chains of command, thereby functioning as
an efficient substitute for the matrix organisations that look so
good on paper, but rarely work in practice. As they disappear

over time, reorganisation becomes necessary again. And it is
based on this line of thinking that he introduces the fantastic
management concept of the “serial changer”, which obviously
should be seen as a positive thing in this context.
The bad news in all of this is that uncertainty and turbulence
are here to stay, along with much higher demands for
adaptability from all of us. The good news is that greater
uncertainty has a direct correlation to greater opportunities
if we are capable of seizing them. And the really good news
is that we can improve our skills in this area if we constantly
exercise our change muscles. Doing this will help us avoid
managerial complacency, dependency on specific individuals
and failures in communication when it really matters.
We are not experts in soccer, but when it comes to getting
people and organisations to produce results, we definitely have
an opinion. Which is why we are really looking forward to the
first top coach who has the guts to shuffle the starting lineup
and change the playing style, not when the team is suffering,
but also – and especially – when things are going well. Blind
faith in “typical” mechanisms and “automatisms” will not win
games in the major leagues. Your opponents are simply too
competent for that…

When you plan for and
lead change initiatives,
their strategic rationale
and your own personal
motives for carrying
them through will be
questioned
– do it anyway!
Change

Complexity (from Latin
complex + -ity). Complicated,
intricate, involved, tangled,
knotty.
Complexity

Problems can be
complicated –
solutions cannot
In his book The User Illusion (Mærk Verden), the journalist and
author Tor Nørretranders concludes that the band width of
our consciousness is approx. 16 bits per second. Whether you
agree with him in this exact definition is unimportant. The key
point is that we are only capable of processing a small fraction
of the information we are constantly bombarded with.
And the information flow is ever increasing. We live in a
complex society in which we orientate ourselves in many
different directions and must relate to hundreds of different
possibilities. Each of these possibilities is rarely unambiguous,
but has nuances and can be interpreted in different ways.
Furthermore, it is not merely the surrounding world’s
complexity and uncertainty we observe, but also our own.
Often, a natural result is that we formulate extremely complex
plans comprising all imaginable details and reservations.
However, these are not viable because in the wilderness of
items on the agenda and activities, we lose purpose, overview
and energy.
It is complexity times two, and that is a challenge. Too
much complexity is simply paralysing. Take for instance the
implementation of a new strategy or the execution of a large
reorganisation. Here, the success rate is directly inversely
proportional to the complexity of the solution. Therefore, we
encourage you to reduce complexity for the simple reason that
it strongly inhibits any form of initiative and drive! That being
said, do not bring out the axe before you have recognised
and understood the complexity. Simplification without
prerequisites is nothing more than an expression of the same
cocksure stupidity which far too often rears its ugly head, e.g.
when 75% of the population after two drawn games in a row

believe that they can do a better job in the role of national
soccer coach than the one actually appointed.
It is a capital sin to underestimate the scope of the assignment
when working with change. It takes 60-80 repetitions before a
behavioural change turns into a habit. For this reason alone, to
start running twice a week is sufficiently complex to a person
with an average willpower. Remember this the next time we
ask an organisation to do something different than usual –
especially because complexity increases exponentially with the
number of people involved.
Bearing this in mind, there are several obvious areas to work
with when it comes to reducing complexity. We can break
down large changes into sequences of smaller ones.
Thus, uncertainty is reduced, the organisation’s change
capacity is increased, and we reduce inner complexity which
makes us more proficient in handling outer complexity.
Simplicity can be forced into the change by focusing on a
few, but decisive must-win battles. Simultaneously, we can
try to steer the organisation’s expectations of what is to take
place before, during and after the change by constantly being
clear-cut in relation to the change’s impact targets and the
measurements supporting them.
It is difficult, but not impossible. “I believe that this nation
should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade
is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him
safely to the earth”, John F. Kennedy said in 1961. Everybody
understood this, and everybody also understood that there
was so much more to it – not least when Neil Armstrong eight
years later made the dream come true.

Complexity
When you introduce
simple solutions to
complex problems,
your understanding of
the underlying factors
causing the problems
will be questioned
– do it anyway!

Competence (from French compétence,
from Latin competentia); ability; skill.
The expression is used within the
areas of pedagogy and psychology
about knowledge and skills, e.g.
competence in problem solving,
in reading and in mathematics.
Core competences

The global competition has changed the premises for how
tomorrow’s companies should be managed and organised.
There is a need for a break with the traditional hierarchy and
kindergarten management where we shift from a reproductive
to an innovative focus. We estimate that today at least 20-30%
of the employees in large Scandinavian companies are involved
in developing the company. Nevertheless, the majority of these
companies are organised in the same manner as they were 30
years ago with too many managers and too much hierarchy
and an almost non-existent environment for fostering
innovation and change.
For many years, identifying a company’s core competences
has formed the basis for creating a competitive edge. This was
also the case 10 years ago, but in the innovative companies
of the future, the core competences are not explicit, and they
change continuously as the company develops. Thus, it makes
much more sense to talk about “the employees possessing
core competences” – the ones who make a difference in the
company and who possess knowledge which can be brought
into play.
Thus, in the innovative and change-oriented company,
identifying these employees is of vital importance.
Experience proves that they pursue personal and professional
development, and they appreciate the feeling of being
part of the winning team. They appreciate a good salary,
but professional and intellectual challenges and interesting
role models in the organisation are what is instrumental
in retaining them. They want to learn, and they are fully
aware that their value depends on the development of own
competences and on their network. But they also want to
Spot and spoil
your core competent
employees

“see a sense of purpose” in their work. The positions and
values of the employees must be reflected in those of the
company. Companies with no idea, differentiators and values
do not attract these employees. Employees possessing core
competences in innovative companies do not need a job
description. They want to solve tasks and “make a difference”.
Employees matching this description are hard to find. Most
managers are aware that all change projects and the majority
of the development in a company are led by the same limited
force who are able to rise above day-to-day operations and
step in whenever necessary. Thus, the principal task of every
manager is to expand this troop. Either by recruiting more
of this type of employee or – and this is probably our most
important point – by identifying and spoiling those who are
already in the company.
For the truth is that these are the employees we, as managers,
often do not pay much attention to. We take their top
performances for granted, while we turn our eyes towards
the employees who shout the loudest. As an example, one of
our employees was for many years a customer with a large
insurance company. He had never notified a single claim, never
got anything stolen and never heard anything from them –
besides invoices and, of course, an annual mandatory letter on
premium increases. Is it any wonder that he changed insurance
company when he was presented with another offer?
Apparently, for all of a sudden he received more attention
from his old insurance company than he had ever been given
altogether in the 10 previous years.
It was just too late – just as is often the case with our best
employees when they one day suddenly hand in a notice of
resignation. Simply because we did not pay enough attention
to them or had the courage to openly show that some
employees (or customers for that matter) ARE more important
than others.

Core competences
When you publicly
acknowledge specific
cultural traits, behaviour
and employees for
making a difference,
others will be offended
and others again will
disagree
– do it anyway!

Concept that within certain
branches of science simply means
change, while in others it indicates
a change (sometimes positive)
towards a more specific goal.
Development

In the large globally oriented Scandinavian organisations,
an interesting pattern has emerged. If we analyse how the
employees use their time in the Scandinavian part of the
organisation, we will find that at least half of their time is spent
on development tasks which are often carried out in the form
of a project. For these organisations, development has become
the primary product, while projects have become the primary
producing unit. This is a quite new trend, and only the most
skilled organisations have caught on to this and organised their
management and reporting structures accordingly.
In a development organisation, it is – to a much greater
extent than in a line organisation – important to understand
the correlation between the projects and what the company
wants to achieve at a strategic, tactical and operational level.
There is also a need for establishing a system which follows
up on whether the resources allocated to the projects are
used effectively. In other words, an unambiguous governance
structure in relation to the projects is to be ensured.
Projects are one-time tasks where cross-organisational teams
are established from time to time based on the relevant
project. For this to work, it is necessary to establish a new and
different structure making demands on how line managers and
project managers act in relation to each other and on how the
decision-making structure is organised. Otherwise, managers
and project managers will have to establish an approach for
each new project they carry out. This will result in numerous
discussions about who makes which decisions in the project.
In comparison, consider the inefficient scenario if no formal
structure existed in the production where managers and
employees discussed who does what along the way – without
Global organisations
of the future must
master development

any other noticeable involvement from top management.
Project managers must be assigned more power, whereas
the number of managers in the line must be reduced.
Otherwise, the result will be “congestion in the midfield”,
power struggles and sub-optimisation. Fortunately, there is a
shortage of programme and project managers, so these could
conveniently be recruited internally among the managers who
are no longer needed. This also signals to the organisation
where the value is created. In the development organisation,
it is attractive – both in terms of salary and prestige – to be a
project manager on large, heavy development tasks.
Earlier, development was limited to the development of
products. However, today there is much more potential
in optimising the manner in which the products are sold,
produced and delivered globally. Research shows that it is five
times more cost-effective to use resources on other types of
development than product development. The point is not that
organisations have to stop developing new products. On the
contrary! It merely shows that there is an enormous potential
for those who are capable of expanding the development
environment from product development to comprising the
entire business model.
However, to get to this point, a change in mindset is required
from top management. For it is not only the organisation that
needs to be transformed from operation into development
– it is also the manager. And it is about time, for it has been
some years now since Peter Senge – who coined the learning
organisation concept – stated: “A manager who spends less
than 70% of his time on projects is not in keeping with the
times”.

Development
When you empower your
project organisation, the
reasons and professional
rationale for doing so
will be questioned by
line management
– do it anyway!

Engaged; preoccupied;
interested.
Engagement

More than 60 years ago, General George Patton said: “Never
tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do, and they
will surprise you with their ingenuity”. A splendid quotation,
both due to its element of surprise considering Patton’s
background, and because he was far ahead of his time.
In a time where Europe as a whole is drifting down the list
of the world’s richest regions, and our almost constitutional
welfare is under threat, we think it would be refreshing to
turn the conversation to other subjects than productivity,
stress, attrition and early retirement benefits. These are
not unimportant subjects, but we believe they are merely
symptoms of something far more fundamental of which Patton
already in the 1940s approached the core: engagement.
Engagement means everything. Research shows that when we
are engaged, our efficiency, productivity and value creation
increase by a factor of 4 compared to a scenario where we
“just” go to work with no other motivation than making a living.
Viewed in this light, there is no sense in measuring a workday
in hours and minutes, and that is exactly our point. There ARE
only 24 hours a day. On the other hand, there are no limits as
to what we are capable of achieving when we are engaged.
We all know the feeling of forgetting about time and place
because we are passionate about what we do. And what is
most fantastic is that we generate at least the same amount
of energy as we spend in the process. In other words, we are
talking about a sustained source of energy capable of solving
all the above challenges. Does it sound too good to be true?
The answer is no. For even though not much has happened
since Patton, we know what stimulates engagement – namely
Engagement
– a source of energy
that never dries out

purpose, autonomy and mastery. Then, what can we do?
First and foremost, we must acknowledge the importance of
engagement, and that we can make a difference by assuming
responsibility and taking charge of it. All we say and do
must be saturated with the difference we make – not the
money we can earn – and we must constantly focus on being
exceptionally competent at what we do. At a personal level,
the company also has a great opportunity of creating a better
life and, thus, a better worklife for its employees. And yes, it is
about physical health, but just as much about a mental change
of gears where we simply break away from bad habits that
ruin engagement. We could, for instance, reduce the number
of rules and procedures that create indifference and fear of
decision-making, and we could refuse to accept open phones
and email communication during meetings, which, by the way,
are often way too long.
A recent global survey indicates that only 14% are fully
engaged in their work, and although we plume ourselves
and assume that the percentage is higher in Scandinavia, the
potential is huge. Knowing quite well that we will never reach
100%, a conservative estimate is that we in Scandinavia alone
miss out on more than EUR 50 billion a year in additional value
creation.

Engagement
When you equate
seemingly intangible
concepts as energy
and engagement with
financial results, your
discernment as a leader
will be questioned
– do it anyway!

Derives from Latin exsequi,
‘carry out, follow up,
put into effect’.
Execution

Is a good strategy
which is not executed
good enough?
Once, when we were discussing some challenges with a client
in relation to a change project, he said: “The time when the few
could think for the many is history”. Those words keep coming
back to us because we feel that they sum up precisely why
strategies are so difficult to execute.
Having a few bright minds conceive and design the strategy is
the very paradigm on which the classic management consulting
model is based. For both clients and consultancies, the model
has the obvious advantage that the deliverables – typically
in the form of an analysis, synthesis and implementation plan
– can be supplied and assessed individually, and then the
consultants can move on to a new “study”.
The challenge inherent in most strategy projects is, however,
that the reality the strategy has to mesh with is extremely
complex. This means that it will not be possible for a tight
circle of decision-makers to have a full overview of all relevant
aspects and consequences, and also that the implementation
itself will be just as complex. Most organisations are well
aware of that, and those who are not can read numerous
studies telling them that the reason why strategies fail often
comes down to an inability to implement what is otherwise an
excellent strategy – and not because the strategy is at fault.
For many consultancies, ourselves included, this has become a
pretext for inaction. After all, we have done a good job, so the
fact that the strategic recommendations are not followed is
surely the organisation’s own responsibility? Or is it? If people
in the same organisation retained the services of a law firm,
they would probably be rather taken aback if the lawyers
prepared the case in minute detail and then left it to the

organisation itself to get through the court case. That would
be unheard-of since even the best preparation is no substitute
for a skilled lawyer’s legal expertise and experience with court
procedure. Nevertheless, this is precisely the situation many
consultancies leave their clients in. Kitted out with a strategy
plan in their hand, they have to navigate through a reality that is
constantly changing and consequently undermines the original
premises on which the strategy was laid. Whether or not that
seems reasonable, it is at any rate not effective. It is also hardly
ideal if a guaranteed impact is one of the main reasons for
bringing in a professional consultant.
Of course, the brightest minds have to be involved in
developing a good strategy, but then they should also be
involved in ensuring that it is put into practice, including
WHETHER it is even possible at all. This is why we believe that
successful client-consultant relationships will in future comprise
expertise within problem solving, process support and training.
In that way, the basis for rating the consultant’s achievements
will also change from “it is a good plan” to focusing on the
impact of the change – ultimately measured by the actual
bottom line improvement.
To live up to this, it is necessary for all involved parties to be
able to answer yes to a few simple, but very fundamental
questions, e.g.: Does the strategy actually make sense for the
organisation? Dare we involve more of the organisation earlier?
Will this strategy have an impact – also in the short term? Do
we communicate honestly about direction and consequences?
Do we have the right people on board? Have we succeeded
in creating an atmosphere that supports what we want to
achieve?
It calls for courage, persistence and skill. But that is what
it takes to achieve impact. This brings us back to the good
strategy that was never executed. That is just too easy! If a
strategy was not executed – no matter the reason – then it
simply was not good enough.

Execution
Whenever you stop up,
re-evaluate or change
course, your strategic
capabilities and your
eligibility as a leader will
be questioned
– do it anyway!

Focus (from Latin focus ‘fire point’,
originally ‘fireplace, hearth’).
Focus

When the conversation turns to the Wall Street crash in 1929,
a picture comes to mind. A black/white photo of one man
buying the shares that everyone else is desperately trying to
dispose of. Many imagine him to be John D. Rockefeller, and
that he was brave enough to go against the tide because
he unconditionally trusted the fundamental strength of his
own business concept and, hence, did not care about what
everyone else did. In fact, it seems it was the vice president
of NYSE (New York Stock Exchange), Richard Whitney, and
the motive somewhat another. However, this does not actually
change much about the point: In times of crisis, opportunities
arise. This, of course, requires that we are capable of seizing
them.
Even though this makes good sense, we have heard it all
before. And what are we then to do? Firstly, we must take
a look at ourselves and forget how lucky or unlucky we
are in relation to external factors such as market, industry
and financial crisis. The fact is that this is far less important
than how good we are at constantly being focused and at
improving our core business.
And focus is, indeed, a keyword. In his book From Good to
Great, Jim Collins applies the story about the fox and the
hedgehog originating from a parable by the Greek poet
Archilochus: “The fox knows many things, however, the
hedgehog knows one big thing”. The fox is a cunning creature,
able to devise a myriad of complex strategies for sneaky
attacks on the hedgehog. The hedgehog, on the other hand,
curls into a prickly ball of sharp spikes pointing outward in
all directions and, thus, simplifies a complex world into one
organisational idea – a fundamental principle – that unites and
In times of crisis,
opportunities arise for
the focused companies

controls everything. The point is that no matter how promising
the fox’s strategies may seem, the hedgehog’s simple and
focused strategy always wins.
The story, obviously, oversimplifies a complex issue, but
nevertheless has a good moral and is easily understandable.
It is also supported by several results from various surveys
across industries and geographic borders indicating that
the value of a company is proportional to the ability to
grow organically. An ability which, as the surveys also show,
is dependent on the development of the efficiency of the
core business. Hedgehogs do what they are good at and
continuously develop it towards perfection, otherwise they will
not survive – which is exactly the same for companies.
This makes us return to John D. Rockefeller (Richard Whitney)
and the others who remained calm, while everyone else
panicked. They certainly were brave. But, as a matter of fact,
the rationale only was that they were true to their fundamental
concept. They simply continued doing what they believed to
be right and came through it strengthened. We, therefore,
urge all focused and hard-working companies to stay focused.
This is the time where your competitors are shaky, and where
the opportunities arise that can further strengthen your core
business after the dust has settled.

When you insist on
focusing on what
you truly believe is
the unique core that
differentiates your
company from your
competitors, you
will be accused of
oversimplifying things
– do it anyway!
Focus

Growth (an increase in something
over time. The term is used
within social sciences, natural
sciences and mathematics).
Growth

One of the visions for Europe as a whole is to be in the
absolute top within growth entrepreneurs. This is not a bad
vision at all as the very foundation for Europe’s status as
welfare societies and one of the world’s richest regions is
that we continuously develop our ability to create value. This
applies at all levels – as individuals, as companies as nations
and as a region.
When we have reservations about this vision, it is not the
intentions of the vision that are at fault. It is more a reflection
of what contributes most to an innovative society ready for
change. Is it by creating a favourable environment for a flora
of small entrepreneurs? Possibly. Does that make the average
European more innovative? Possibly. But even if that is the
case, it is a regional cultural influence process with a time
horizon far into the future – and at that time, there is a real risk
that time has run out for Europe.
Here, we actually believe that the European business sector,
and the Scandinavian in particular, holds a large opportunity
to kick-start the journey towards the top of entrepreneurs.
The truth is that growth basically is a question of being able –
and daring – to seize an opportunity when it arises. It sounds
simple, but that is not the case, and, paradoxically, this is where
the potential lies. Namely in our way of organising ourselves
which is just as old and, for that matter, just as inexpedient as
the internal combustion engine and the incandescent bulb are
today. We live in a global knowledge society where windows
of opportunity are opened and closed in an increasing pace.
Thus, the companies that win are those which most effectively
and fast can allocate resources (knowledge) to where the
value creation is largest.
Large companies
are the best
entrepreneurs

What characterises these companies? First of all: Agreement
about direction and goals in the management team. Nothing
hampers growth more than individual power struggles.
Secondly: Common goals as a supplement to individual and
function-specific goals. Thirdly: Room for employees and
managers to seize the opportunities when they arise. And last
but not least: A culture where career, salary and prestige are
not a question of title and number of employees referring to
the individual manager, but, on the contrary, the value created
by the individual.
It is right here, in the companies that are already generating
the majority of Europe and Scandinavia’s value creation that
the real potential lies. And the elegant part is that we as a
by-product get exactly what we so eagerly want. Namely an
overall strengthening of our regional “entrepreneur muscle”,
expressed as the sum of all the private and public sector
employees who are now given the opportunity to work
systematically with innovation and, thus, improve their own
and their companies’ readiness for change.
To be the world’s number one region at growth
entrepreneurship is a beautiful thought. It is also much easier
to communicate than to execute. Ours is not, even though it
definitely has more potential…

When you change
focus from rewarding
individual achievements
towards a stronger focus
on common goals, you
will lose some of the high
performers that make
your company successful
today
– do it anyway!
Growth

Impact (from Latin impactus, from
impingere ‘thrust, strike or dash
against’). The force or impetus
transmitted by a collision; Measure
of the tangible and intangible
effects (consequences) or impression
of one thing’s or entity’s action
or influence upon another.
Impact

In a changeable world of management, full of acronyms and
buzzwords, it is encouraging that there are, after all, concepts
that have so much substance to them that they are as relevant
today as they were 10 or 20 years ago. Quite funnily, they are
often underrated – perhaps because they are so obvious.
Take, for instance, performance management, which we in
Implement consider one of the most powerful management
tools, especially in relation to changes that call for
organisations and, thus, human behaviour to change.
No matter how long and deeply an overweight person
ponders the best strategy for achieving a healthier life, in all
probability, the end result will be a regimen of eating less and
exercising more. It is not exactly hard to arrive at that insight.
What IS hard is to actually live by that strategy! This is where
performance management becomes relevant. For, as with
any other behavioural change, it is incredibly difficult to work
dedicatedly towards achieving a healthier life without first
stepping up on the bathroom scales, get the shock over with
and then subsequently measuring whether the changes made
are having an impact.
If we look at major organisational changes or large-scale
system implementations, basic impact measurements are often
“forgotten”. Projects are typically initiated with the intention
of easing the administrative burden, improving quality or
increasing productivity, but we believe that the measurements
that support attainment of the desired impact, like the
bathroom scales in the example above, are in many cases not
established early enough or, worse, are not established at all.
Change, facts
and impact

A key challenge, then, is that the rules have to be defined
first. If, say, we want to measure productivity, we first have
to define what that actually is in each specific case, which
is not necessarily an easy task. In addition, performance
management, including not least establishing the
measurement system itself, is not the organisation’s primary
focus in a change process. Often, this is regarded as a separate
project to be tagged ad hoc onto the change project. But
this is not feasible – impact measurement and change are
inextricably linked!
Without a system for impact measurement in place, there is
a tendency to assess the project in isolation in terms of the
individual project deliverables we have planned. We forget
the overall purpose and find it difficult to answer the question
as to why we launched this particular initiative. That makes us
reluctant to make any adjustments to the project content. And
whereas the idea was to learn as the project proceeds, there is
a great risk of ending up in a situation where the operation was
successful, but the patient died.
Therefore, performance management holds water to this
day. For whether we call it management by objectives, key
performance indicators or some other term, it is highly
recommendable to measure on indicators that give some
pointers to the results we have achieved – and then, of course,
to act on those results.
What is most thought-provoking is perhaps that it all starts
with that little word “why”. Why should I lose weight? Why do
we need a new ERP system? “Why” is an amazing word that
could easily replace a good many of the concepts that flourish
in the world of management, but it is probably too obvious...

Impact
When you establish
KPIs in support of the
change, you’ll find that
this work is highly
resource-intensive and
only reflects part of the
change
– do it anyway!

To carry out; put into action;
perform: To put into effect
according to or by means of a
definite plan or procedure.
Implementation

When a butterfly flaps its wings in London, the ultimate
consequence may be that it triggers a hurricane in the
Caribbean months later. This was one of the more spectacular
conclusions that followed in the wake of the discovery that
complex non-linear systems, such as the earth’s atmosphere,
are extremely sensitive to the slightest change in the system’s
initial conditions.
When changes are to be made in an organisation, we face
a similar complexity and are, thus, subject to some of the
same chaotic natural laws that govern the weather. The full
implications of this relatively new recognition are difficult to
grasp; for the managers responsible in the organisation, for
those who make a living advising on how to implement changes
and for those who deal with the topic in books and theory.
Basically, there are two schools of thought: Those who
maintain that changes are linear, proceed through a number
of well-defined phases and, thus, can be controlled, and those
who maintain that changes are non-linear and chaotic and,
accordingly, can be influenced, but not controlled. John P.
Kotter and Ralph Stacey are good examples of management
gurus representing each their school.
Kotter is popular because his approach is linear and creates
order. On the other hand, it is our experience that Kotter’s logic
underpins – somewhat excessively so – those huge change
projects that look so enticing on paper, but are so difficult to
execute in practice.
Here, it is important for us to stress that major change projects
must be approached with cautiousness. The risk of initiating
The art of
implementing
real change

something that will run out of control is imminent. A good
example is a large Scandinavian company which, following
thorough strategic considerations, planned and executed a
divisionalisation of the entire organisation. Within less than
a year, the company went from a healthy profit margin of
10% into the red. The fixed costs exploded, while the entire
organisation’s focus was directed inwards at its own issues
rather than at the customers. And it was not the plan that was
at fault, nor was it the strategic rationale for executing the
change. It was the change process itself.
This is where Stacey becomes relevant when claiming that we
cannot predict the outcome of organisational changes with
certainty, and that the uncertainty increases with the scope
and length of the project. By analogy, it is possible to predict
the weather tomorrow in Copenhagen, Stockholm or Oslo with
reasonable certainty, whereas we have no idea of what it will
be like in a month on a worldwide basis.
In organisational terms, this means that we can do ourselves
a great favour by splitting up large-scale projects into
sequences of smaller ones. More loops reduce uncertainty,
the organisation’s “change muscle” is exercised, and it allows
us to learn from our experience. With the addition, of course,
of focused and intelligent planning and execution of the
individual change projects.
Vast changes which in a single stroke impact the entire
organisation or much of it should, as far as possible, be
initiated only as a matter of life or death for the company.
They look good on paper, but the art is not in planning – it is in
implementing the change.

When you invite people
to take part in the change
and give them genuine
influence early on in
the process, you’ll lose
control
– do it anyway!
Implementation

Importance; weightiness;
in a figurative sense: being
critical, carry great weight.
Importance

The Roman senator and general Cato incorporated the words
“Furthermore, I think Carthage must be destroyed” into every
speech he held in the senate. Even though he kept repeating
this, he apparently did not say it enough. Just like the message
in this article cannot be said often enough, even though we
have heard it all before.
The father of one of our colleagues had been smoking ever
since he was a boy. He made it clear that his children were not
to smoke, so rationally he had acknowledged that smoking
is dangerous. Nevertheless, he smoked 30 cigarettes a day
up until the day he suffered from coronary thrombosis at the
age of 61. He survived and immediately stopped smoking. The
example emphasises a key point in all change – that a change
really needs to be important on a personal basis. Otherwise,
it will not be realised. The concept of importance is a central
point in the book A Sense of Urgency written by one of our
gurus, Harvard professor John P. Kotter. Strategic changes can,
quite simply, only be executed effectively if a sufficiently large
part of the organisation believe it to be sufficiently important.
It is just as trivial as it is right, and it must be the very definition
of a waste of time to devote attention to something that is not
important.
Unfortunately, we often waste our time. An essential reason
for this is the self-satisfaction which sneaks up on even the
most skilled companies. Here, the worst thing we can do is to
lean back and wait for the entire organisation, the family or
whatever system we want to change to realise the seriousness
of the situation. So, how do we make important things
important?
Make important
things important

First of all, we need to acknowledge that just because
something is important to us, it is not necessarily important to
everybody else. Here, it can be tempting to position ourselves
as leaders who really make things happen. This is also OK
as long as it does not turn into blind action. For instance,
our colleague’s initiative of buying one year’s supply of
nicotine gum to his father was, of course, done with the best
intentions, but that alone would hardly be enough for him to
stop smoking. The point is that if something is to be made
important, the acknowledgement must start much earlier
than we would typically find natural, and we must appeal to
both the brain and the heart. We must also remember that
we, in our role as managers, often have spent several months
preparing for a strategic change. That which is important HAS
become important to us, but when we then demand that the
remainder of the organisation joins the ranks instantaneously,
it is not only unrealistic – it is also unfair.
Thus, we have been pleased when several of Scandinavia’s
well-known top managers have addressed the difficult market
conditions and made an honest announcement at an early
stage. Not about a diffuse crisis, but specifically about the
need for reductions in the capacity. This affects both the brain
and the heart and makes the important things important.
Carthage was ultimately destroyed. But either Cato should
have held more speeches or addressed the hearts of the
other senators more strongly, for it was not until Hannibal had
slaughtered 70,000 Roman soldiers at Cannae that what was
important became important to others than Cato.

When you communicate,
you’ll reach a point
where you get tired of
listening to yourself
– do it anyway!
Importance

Innovation (from Latin innovatio,
from in-, derivative of novus ‘new’),
development of a new idea and its
realisation in practice. The central
point about an innovation is that, as a
new idea, it is brought into actual use.
Innovation

During our work for a global growth company, we have
recently carried out a project with focus on developing
products faster and more efficiently. The project was, in our
opinion, a success. The client, who is recognised as one of
the world’s leading experts within his area of expertise, was,
basically, satisfied. However because he acts the way he does
when clients are at their best, he asks anyway: Seeing that we
are capable of reducing the lead time of a project from 600 to
300 days, why not reduce it to 100 days?
It is, of course, quite the partykiller in a situation where we
had expected to get a pat on the shoulder for our efforts. But
he is right. Why do we consider good results as final when
we are fully aware that in 12 months from now, we will be able
to create the same percentage improvement one more time
and once again 12 months later? Why do we not change our
mindset radically, raise the bar and reap the full benefits now?
And once again – not in 12 months, but in six months?
Recently, we had the pleasure of discussing strategy with
Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Management.
According to Martin, today, most strategic work suffers from a
gap between analytical and intuitive thinking. This is primarily
caused by the fact that strategy has become an analytical
discipline where predictability is rewarded more than results.
Rather promise little and surprise positively than reaching for
the stars and risking not quite reaching them – analogously to
the above example.
However, large innovations solely based on analyses of the
past are rare. For even though the analysis is imperative in
order to being able to understand and generalise and, thus,
Why not?

scale, the tempo and complexity in our surrounding world have
reached a level where we need to change the balance between
value creation and our need for predictability. Those of us who
think analytically must learn to speak an intuitive language,
and those who think intuitively must learn to communicate in
an analytical mindset. Both sets of competences are absolutely
necessary. Even though innovation and intuitive thinking
are closely linked, it is only when rationality and analysis are
involved in the process that the large-scale commercial and
business breakthroughs take place.
Companies such as Apple, Google and Just Eat are good
examples. Their development has been unpredictable, but their
value creation has been immense because they have been able
to combine intuitive and analytical thinking. Whether we, as
Roger Martin, call it Design Thinking is of minor importance.
We MUST be able to combine that which is rational and
analytical with that which is intuitive and irrational. In this cross
field, limitations turn into opportunities. This is also where the
most successful companies operate and the best employees
thrive, develop and generate most value.
Thus, the question presented in the beginning of this article
is just a logical consequence of the reality we live in and a
question that we – who are well on in years – must get used to
being asked: Why not?

Innovation
When you constantly
question the way things
are done, you’ll create
uncertainty and debate
– do it anyway!

The capacity or ability to lead,
the position or office of a leader.
Can also mean guidance; direction.
Leadership

A couple of years ago, Harvard Business Review published a
thought-provoking article by Gary Hamel, former professor
at Harvard, who coined the concept of core competences. In
the article, which in our opinion is mandatory reading for all
strategists, he lists 25 “Moon Shots”. They represent his and a
number of other thinkers’ thoughts on what it takes to create
the same quantum leap within management in the 21st century
as the Apollo programme did within technology in the 20th
century.
Even though all 25 Moon Shots are relevant, we have chosen
to concentrate on just one of them based on a personal
experience which one of our employees had recently together
with his three boys aged 12-15. The boys had been given the
task to plan three days where the only rules were a maximum
amount of money to be spent and that it was to take place
in the open. A typical project task which most of us will
encounter hundreds of times during our lives – both personally
and professionally. To cut a long story short, it was very
difficult for the boys to agree on anything, and when the oldest
finally succeeded in dictating the terms, they were quarrelling,
running late and not able to meet the agreed budget. Also
a typical situation in many projects. The boys’ father came
to their aid and made the arrangements, and, luckily, the
weekend turned out to be a great experience. They drove off
into the woods, camped out, caught fish and went canoeing.
When first hearing the story, we did not think more of it
since we have experienced many similar situations – not just
personally, but also professionally in our own company and
as consultants in other organisations. Then, we read Hamel’s
article, specifically Moon Shot no. 7, “Redefine the work of
The leaders of the 21st
century are architects

leadership”, where he states: “The notion of the leader as a
heroic decision-maker is untenable. Leaders must be recast
as social-systems architects who enable innovation and
collaboration”. The leader’s role is, within the framework of
these systems, to define a set of overall ground rules and
frames supporting innovation, collaboration and development
among the employees. Thus, “the system” and not the leader
makes the decisions.
And even though this may not be just as ground-breaking
to a Scandinavian as to an American, it is a good reminder
– but it is easier said than done. In our experience, only few
organisations are able to keep their cool and let the ship take
in water, waiting for decision-making power and initiative to be
built up. Instead, we put pressure on the middle manager who
is superior to the employees who are to improve their ability
and will to make independent decisions with the result that the
middle manager merely “takes over”. And then we are back to
where we started.
Nevertheless, there is no getting round it. We must face
that the situations – either in the role of a leader or a parent
– in which we make all decisions ourselves are merely an
expression of poor management and poor upbringing,
respectively.

When you insist on
delegating decisions and
rely on “the system”
to make them, you’ll
inevitably disagree with
some of them
– do it anyway!
Leadership

6 CHANGE ACTIONS AND PARADOXES

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a 6 CHANGE ACTIONS AND PARADOXES

Similar a 6 CHANGE ACTIONS AND PARADOXES (20)

Más de Implement Consulting Group

Más de Implement Consulting Group (20)

Último

Último (20)

6 CHANGE ACTIONS AND PARADOXES