Under certain conditions, a small number of practices of power, significant and lasting change for the organization is created. This statement – crucial for understanding the nature of the management of change, I change what is labeled viral – on three assumptions:
The first life of the organization is not linear. What should I do? Organization see things every day that a mismatch between what we consider to show cause and effect. Take trust, for example.Normally it takes to build a set. Seems to slow growth. Suddenly something happens (an event, a prize, recognition of errors and show sincerity in mind …) and confidence levels skyrocket. It may remain so for long. Then something else happened – maybe only a relatively small injury, is in the broader context – and trust eroded quickly, slipping the curve and often left a strong sense of injustice and feelings of injustice. The reality is that whetherLike it or not, small changes ("interference") sometimes have a significant impact or violent impact. This non-linear context in which we work every day, is crucial for understanding the processes of change in organizations. But most of the framework for managing change, we are with – and most of the planning and implementation processes for that matter – the opposite, namely linearity major problems need: big solutions, big changes have large operations, great need for a large number of targetsStrategic objectives and a number of actions and implementations.
According Come deeper change. Many experienced managers agree that there is no real change if we see changes in behavior. We can map to create new processes and systems, design of new structures, solid communication plans to educate people and then call to change. But if people as before, or if their behavior does not change much further work, we have only the illusion of change. The problem is thatthe most important of these – tacit or otherwise – behind processes and change "is a bad one is that the behavior will follow as a result of changes in processes. We did, we changed to B, because it is better, people will behave accordingly. How many people know that did not happen … at least not all the time!
The above assumptions is wrong. Practices are out of place in the equation. new processes and systems do not create behaviors in a sustainable manner. Even a first peakpositive reaction is frequently followed by low interest rates and assumptions fading. Simply reactive change in behavior after the implementation of a new process or system is often unsustainable. Instead, we must lead in the first organization to have a new job! Consider an example. Imagine being the introduction of "collaborative software", a system that allows people to exchange information, create common repository for the exchange of ideas and projects,continuous updating of customer data, etc. The new system will not create collaboration per se. It is not individualistic people walk in the company's employees. It is not the people entering data in the CRM (Customer Relationship Management), just because they can. cooperative behavior must be already present in the tissue organization of the behavioral sciences. Then the "collaborative software" is to facilitate cooperation in a sustainable manner. SoftwareFirst, the process, the process of first behavior … behavior must be our priority.
Third According to Margaret Thatcher ("There is no such thing as society"), I would say that there is no such thing as culture, there is only behavior. Behaviors create culture and not vice versa. Culture is not a closed container such things as beliefs, attitudes, values, behaviors, and logos. Intellectually stimulating, you can use all these concepts – that make for goodCalls – but pragmatic, different from the visible logo (short for "culture") are the only other things observable behaviors. A culture of accountability, for example, the system does not exist in the same way as an HR department or a work of performance management. blind people do, A, B, C (holding assumption of responsibility for the acts, promises to respond quickly to problems and are rewarded for clear results) – behave in a certain way – we can labelCulture in a way. The same applies to any "other culture". "The culture of innovation" is a good concept attractive and engaging, but otherwise not very effective operating beyond language. What we see is people doing innovative things to improve their way of solving problems with new ideas, routinely ask 'Can we do differently "to do, etc. And' precisely because of the existence of collective behavior These a particular organization that allows usus to label it "does not exist a culture of innovation" because it is a 'container for Innovation ", which counts these things. It can be argued that if such practices do not exist, it is safe because the city must provide processes, systems, rules, etc., or to make people behave in this way. That's true, but the processes, systems and rules have been created by individuals, are the result of their conduct. Some people make the rules for other peopleinnovative things that others will follow. In both cases it comes to behavior.
These three assumptions: (1) non-linearity of the organization, (2) the need for focus on the behavior and to explain "real change", and (3) understanding of culture as a concept that has meaning only visible behaviors allow us to create an alternative basis for a modern approach to managing change. This is Viral Change (TM), which I introducedfirst with the affirmation that "under certain conditions, a small set of behaviors of the power to create a substantial change."
The next question should be "how". To answer this, we must question how you could start that small set of behaviors defined. Let me say in advance that any behavior needs reinforcement (reward, recognition) to stabilize around. In other words, if the behavior of A is there because it was closer (if you know what or who is to strengthenor not). So if we need to strengthen the conduct of its members of this small group, we need at a level that can be improved easily defined. What is this? And 'quite detailed and concrete with a clear sense for everyone. Consider an example. Collaboration is certainly a behavior, but left at the conceptual level, two slightly different interpretations of what it means. And worse, they can not double-check their understanding ofSense to go out and tacitly assumed that both are speaking the same thing. This high-level approach – which have called for macromolecular use a biological analogy – is not very useful in terms of income. These two people may have different or even opposite things, rewarding cooperation under the same flag.
If we try to be more specific, people can be with some other translations. For example, for X, cooperation is the exchange of information between the team and for the YAnd 'spontaneous use of resources, if necessary. This level is now beginning to look more likely to win because I am bound to see whether the information provided and / or shared resources, and not the people. I have this level "molecular". The discussion of these same people – Well, maybe with a better understanding of this challenge – you want to go even further and say, for example, that the actual behaviors they want to see is people from A-TeamSend a weekly e-mail to all members of Team B, with updated information about customers, and that the officer take the A and B to borrow any resources "Monday" to each other. I call this level of behavior "Atomic."
These atomic level considered out of context may seem trivial torn, especially for someone who is not part of the year. But in the broader context – that is, behaviors, the molecular atomic and molecular behaviors that create up to create macromolecularConcepts – these atomic behaviors are not trivial. An examination of the validity of the atomic behavior is simple. It only takes imagination and case management. The question is: "Imagine if everyone did (atomic behavior here), which is normally a routine, what kind of organization we've become?" This imagine "if" test is at the heart of how we get this card small set of behaviors. Depending on the situation of the company or eventhe program objectives of change management – perhaps with some help of people with a strong background behavioral sciences – comes with a list of possible behaviors of their passage on the "all images if 'test.
The next step is the decision. My words are used wisely. I do not say, priorities, although this is certainly an option. But the difference is significant. In our traditional process of setting priorities, we can define what is possibleor not, or what can be done with available resources. Narrowing the choice often leads to leave all the good ideas, "are not under our control," or would be too expensive. Unfortunately, that approach means that in many cases, those who have the greatest impact may fall through the cracks. These considerations may be important, but in my experience, people with ideas to dismiss on this basis, too often and too quickly. With a focus on behavior – Fireproof – theMuch has to do what you can, even without the direct control of some resources.
In Viral Change (TM) mode, please exercise management reviews, and select behavior essentially done before the test to present 'when'. In my experience with organizations with a small group of five fifty-six behavior at the atomic level is defined and the existence of this "if" test is all we need to make big changes.
Still mode ', we must add another principle: that the organization is a network ofaffecting the connections (+ streams of information). This is hardly a revolutionary statement. Most management practices and process change management "in words, while focusing energy and attention on a concept of organization, and looks like a" hydraulics "with the leadership at the top and flow objectives, guidelines, rules date filters through the pipes at all levels of management. This rather mechanical-hydraulic – entrance at the top,Starting from the bottom – the concept of organization includes the existence of groups with common goals, groups convened. In fact, the standard concept of an organization, a teamocracy. We learned that the teams are the natural form of cooperation, and management practices that have fully internalized to the point that we are happy and more or less unconsciously equate cooperation and teamwork.
However, the modern vision of the organization is aoften a loose network of connections among individuals. Yes, some of these compounds have been developed and produced in order to obtain benefits (teams, committees, task forces), but this could be only one fourth of the total bill. It 's like visiting a new city and jump into a tour bus. You see the monuments, the building of institutions, highways and parks, some curiosity. This gives you a bit 'deep understanding of urban life. In fact, many citizenstheir entire city can spend a lifetime without getting one of those buildings, roads or parks. The bus ride from organization events, teams and facilities, but it is much more going on. informal discussions, spontaneous cooperation, development of intellectual capital beyond the "my team" to ask questions, a conversation about a common concern, venting emotions (including complaints, frustration, confusion, admiration), etc. occur inNetworks of individuals, the roads real organization. Some of these links are "strong ties" (nearby, often) and others are "weak ties" (defined distance, melted from time to time), as amended by sociologists. Most – but not all – of the type of force groupings are represented by teams. These are designed in visible areas, and cooperation. But perhaps up to three quarters of organizational life is understood in the context of these streets loose and perhaps invisibleConnections involving interviews.
Today we know much about how networks work, thanks to a convincing convergence of social sciences and computer sciences. There are remarkable similarities between these networks, whether they are those that provide connections to the global Internet, computer networks, or social networks, like those who really represent the organizational life. I believe that three characteristics of these networks have interesting implications forManagement organization and change management.
First, the network is not very democratic and egalitarian. A few nodes (individuals) are a lot of links and most of the other nodes (individuals) have fewer connections. It's not the normal bell curve or normal distribution, which is constantly in mind if we ask any question about the performance of the organization's staff. In fact, it is best represented by a power law orlogarithmic distribution. Incidentally, this feature – well proven in both the e-world and social world – should be almost a surprise to people working in organizations. The fact that a relatively small number of individuals who are not necessarily too high ranks in the hierarchy seems to be very well connected with "observation path."
The second feature is less egalitarian. These nodes (individuals) with a high number of connections tend to earn more, andthose with fewer connections tend to like that or even less (unless a way to stay "mutation personal success). Again, this is not surprising, another term for "the rich get richer (in connections, power, influence), and the poor get poorer. I have this as an effect of the networks of Matthew.
The third characteristic is that at some point in the life of these nodes act to stop some of them, as each node is a single uniform collectiveBehavior. An inflection point occurs, and appears a new entity or phenomenon. This is to explain a complicated way, such as transforming water molecules into ice at zero degrees – phase transition in physics. If you include a degree of freedom for the social life of individuals in a team can stop seeing people with different thoughts, actually a single, unique, united, strong and internally consistent. We call it "groupthink."
When we combine these three characteristics – power law, MatthewEffects and hot spots – and then to organizational life, a wonderful and enlightening picture is displayed. Actually influence to keep a small group of individuals, the power, the rest of the organization, but can hardly be represented by the hierarchy shown on the map. This group or sector of the network is growing in its influence over time (even if their entry can change). If these highly connected, highly influential people accepted disseminationThis small set of behaviors that the past this 'if' test approved them practiced encouraged others to do the same thing and reinforces these practices in which (peer to peer), then at any stage of progression of influence that a "transition social phase "(turning point) occurs, and that such conduct was established a new routine. We can not see the shift in the same way that we do not see the water molecules are" ice "! peopleinfluence can affect others now – with a performance in line with their degree of connectivity – and again at some point, some groups of individuals, a sufficient critical mass to tip and a new routine or behavioral disorders are standard. Change in these circumstances, the internal form of an epidemic of new behaviors, social and not a true infection by a cascade of "training" or communications program with a series of presentations and workshops.
So who are the "powerful arePeople? How can we find them and ask for help? There are many ways – with varying degrees of complexity – are available to identify these people. The academic, social way is to use tools to perform what is called a "social network analysis" or transfer of these compounds, which can be done through questionnaires or other means. My "Way practitioner" is, just ask the people! In my experience, if you ask managers for a given profileIndividuals – much obliged to hear a great influence, the people themselves what they can do things, and sometimes imitated, in the lower ranks, etc. – are able to write the names of almost there. This is a less demanding, more pragmatic to find 'the people that are used for the dissemination encouraged by new behaviors.
The mechanisms of diffusion, the well-known in the social sciences are imitation, social, copying, role models, etc. In practice, this means that Joe with aInterview with Lisa in this way: "You know, I think it's time to take it seriously and keep our promises. I'm sure that will soon begin. The next meeting, I propose to work with the other check every broken promise . What do you think?'m all for it. "This may be a small and simple example, but in Viral Change (TM) mode, everything starts with the approval and the first role model of this small group of highly related Tendo labelagents of change "Change Champions" or "."
While individual-level and micro-social imitation is the primary means of reproduction, copying or social conformity with "a set of new rules" of someone (or group) is familiar, at macro-social (or within the 'organization), the main instrument is the story. What worked or not, as a team to overcome a bureaucratic obstacle, as another group filled the "missing data" to act on what John has in ScotlandCustomers are skeptical that the sessions completely changed in this unit, setting the agenda of conduct recently, these people systematic use of this group in Cornwall on the telephone and ask colleagues in East Anglia for input or ideas, etc. … These are the kinds of things remind people, and tend to imitate or "Bookmarks". You can see how the practice of "Sound Best Practices ', but it is not.' Best Practices' project is often much more static, but a year or Planned reviewEvil. Stories flow every day and can always produce a steady stream of "things that are happening now and that were not there before" will be distributed.
We can now see how Change (TM ') is very different from the standard change-me too-viral program management. "In the standard, conventionally, a large number of shares indicated, all, or less simultaneously, at all levels management, the organization is to expect more changes and reaches every corner of the product. InViral Change (TM) mode, a small group of practice on internal networks influence grows, a small group of people, an internal infection and disorders of the critical behavior of sustainable change, further dissemination of stories.
Three other characteristics of Viral Change (TM) should also be considered:
(A) The measure of success is not done through the usual series of milestones and deadlines. created, in fact, a metric system from scratch and tailored toorganization, including those that introduce elements of 'if' test, to see that the organization "wants." With the traditional "I" program, too, everything is mapped in advance, the calendar, and "planned." Viral Change (TM) approach is appropriate, fit-metric-design-purpose, once the process is started and the Champions League can be a great role to play in this task. The metric system provides some quantitative data, but is likely to be built on one in particularqualitative basis, based on the flow of stories. This is not the usual way, the highly process-oriented organizations "measure things, 'and thinking may have some difficulties to understand and adapt management.' As Einstein said:" Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that counts can be counted. "
(B) Viral Change (TM) models of leadership challenges in the organization, because what is needed here behind the scenes support for the champions in their communities spreadinfection. Indeed, a model of "distributed leadership" appears, and suddenly the leaders of the organization is successful with its community Champions. Top-down leadership must facilitate, support and ensure that the work of the hidden champions. There is no command and control with this community involved. In fact, if I push to establish a chain of command, the Champions report directly to the community – and have a mandate – the top management, regardless of where theindividual sample is in a particular line management structure of the 'plumbing'.
(C) The term "hidden" in the paragraph above is not trivial. Viral Change (TM) comes in a more informal and invisible, such as infection. There are groups working in cascade, in which the upper short of Champions or a variety of PowerPoint below. Champions opportunity to meet people, but will be on its own initiative, and will be informal. (Again, need a guidethis easier by removing barriers or activation of some resources) There are no declarations of great "a new program or something you can watch /" other company initiative provides. The most visible and formal Viral Change (TM), the less likely its success. Invisibility is not a secret. The objectives can be specified as a time, but the less said about the more you act the better leadership from the top. Even when informality does not mean chaos. Means thatinformal discussions and facilitation of non-formal, life is not structured organization. Indeed, the greatest risk for viral Change (TM) is the almost inevitable tendency to formalize it took something that sometimes spontaneously, manage our ranks learned way of doing things.
That's not to say that with Viral Change (TM), there is no structure or organization involved. require, in fact most of the things described here, somePlanning and staging a small team back, coordinates and facilitates the optimal environment. For example, to identify samples and shouted for help, must be collected and presented with ideas, new practices and the way we beat them at work. Regular meetings of this community are needed to extract the stories and progress. Line management must be informed what is expected of them and, most importantly, what not to expect – as a directManagement of Champions in their respective departments, etc. So there is still a good dose of social engineering required, but not down on the scale of the traditional waterfall type hydraulic system.
In summary, Change (TM) provides a framework for creating different viral and spread of change, the practice and is supported by theory. From the theoretical point of view, has a solid foundation in the social sciences, behavioral sciences and modern network theory (the latter itselfbe from computer science and complexity theory) was constructed. On the practical side, we have a valuable experience, that approach works in practice. For example, created a collaborative environment, in three minutes six months ago, yet stable and sustainable after three years.
Let me finally upgrading of local original beginning of this document and a summary of the main ingredients of Viral Change (TM), both local and distinct actions:
Before The organization is not linear,so it makes sense to look for changes of small ("interference") with potentially large impact2. Practices are the only real currency change3. A small snack in a position-all these practices must be chosen4. Dissemination of these behaviors is through internal networks of connections – usually more visible, – and through the initial impact of a small group of individuals (champions). These are the dimensions that I initially called, if I have the words "under certaincircumstances'5. Travel stories about new practices and change is an internal success6 epidemic. Measuring success is an ongoing effort by data quality parameters and custom designed by some of the samples Community7. Leadership is distributed throughout the organization, with leaders and managers have a formal role in supporting and facilitating, not a command and control8. Viral Change (TM) as a process needs to work very informal and invisible to them.However, this invisibility informality and must be done by hand. These features are not intuitive to the traditional organization and management may need to adjust their mindset9. The greatest risk of failure comes from too much structure and the natural tendency to return to a "Management programme'10. Beyond the obvious targets of Viral Change (TM) to create specific cultural changes, this is for us a picture possibilityQuestion our concept of organization, management practices and the ability of managers to navigate through our ambiguity levels that are necessary for a company agile. Unless command and control, where life is a discovery Constantly emerging opportunities beyond what is written formally planned, measured, communicated and celebrated.
Thebest Professional Risk Management Association home insurances quotes Bestbuy Panasonic Plasma 58 Lowest Price
The role modeling of women in nontraditionaltraditional views about male and female areas.