July 2021 - Patrick Farrell Consulting

Organizational change is about creating a new future for my organization. Sometimes that new future is easy to see and understand, usually because the change seems to be something we are familiar with, and have done before. Under those conditions, whoever is the primary initiator of change probably has a pretty clear idea of when and how the change will be accomplished and what the organization will look like when we are ‘finished’. It may also be the case that the process and outcome are so evident that most of the members of the organization can also visualize the outcome.

Transformational changes to an organization can be quite different, in that the changes envisioned are likely to substantially change the organization, and some of the direct or indirect effects of that change are not easy to anticipate. Even more challenging is when the change ‘target’ and maybe process are evolving as the work is underway. Overlay uncertainty (real goals) on uncertainty (how we’ll get there) and it seems we will have a real mess on our hands.

Forecasting Creates a Possible Future for Your Organization’s Transformation

One of the approaches that I have tried to use in a variety of ways to help (somewhat) with this tangle of tangles, is a version of forecasting. The idea is to posit a possible future that is not assured, but plausible, as a way to begin to visualize where the organization is now, relative to that plausible future, what needs to happen to get there, and what we might expect along the way. In its simplest form, this is a proposal for the future. Sometimes this is put to work in a simulated backward-looking view as a ‘history of the future’. In this example, we might posit where we want/hope/expect our organization to be in the future (say in 5 years) and pretend we are historians looking back 5 years from now, writing the story of how we got there, pivotal moments, key insights, etc. From this effort we might glean valuable insights into what we think we need to do to arrive at the posited future. While I like this approach, it relies on a plausible (singular) future that is widely accepted, on which to build the ‘history’.

In the land of uncertainly, that plausible future is only that—plausible—and a useful (though perhaps mind-spinning question) might be—what other plausible futures are there that we should consider? Now it looks like forecasting is only making my uncertainty about change even more of a mess. But maybe not.

Consider forecasting with a scenario planning flavor. Suppose in our initial thinking about our organizational future, even with a set of changes in mind, we propose not one, but several plausible futures that could accrue as a result of where we are and what we are planning to do. Recognize that while we are busily doing this change work, the world outside our organization has not stopped, so our relationship to that world will continue to change as well. Can we spend a little time thinking through different scenarios that might have us arrive at somewhat different futures from a common starting point with similar change efforts? Some futures might seem most likely, some highly unlikely, but I have found great benefit from forcing the conversation around multiple future states. If you like math, think of a very limited Monte Carlo simulation. If you don’t like math—don’t think of it.

How does Forecasting Help Organizational Change?

How might this help? Out of the universe of possible future states for our organization, we will have thought about not just one, but several possibilities (some of which we might really want to avoid). We can evaluate one as most probable, and talk very publicly about that as our best estimate forecast for the new future we hope our changes will bring. We can also acknowledge that our actions could result in other outcomes—some of which we might be just fine with, some of which we really want to avoid. Obviously the latter allows an open discussion of what we want to achieve and what we want to avoid, and acknowledges the unspoken and maybe unspecified uncertainty folks feel at the outset. The effort also gives us some pretty clear guidance of what we need to do, or not do, to try to avoid some of the outcome scenarios we saw and hated.

I am a big fan of forecasting—not with certainty but with plausibility or highest likelihood. I like the idea of exploring other possible futures or forecasts, not as equally likely, but as possible and instructive. In my experience, for a community embarking on a major change, whether everyone is involved or many are watching to see how this plays out, suggesting what the future might look like with appropriate recognition of alternatives, can be very helpful. It can encourage a group to move from immobilization by uncertainty to a greater comfort with how uncertainty may play out, and hopefully greater confidence in themselves and the organizations ability to see and act as elements of the future appear and conform, or not, to that forecast. And, of course, we very publicly revise the forecast as reality intrudes.

How Does Forecasting Help Change Leaders?

For change “leaders” at many levels of the organization, forecasting gives a chance to share a view of the future, acknowledge the uncertainly embedded in that view, yet be as clear as you can be about what the outcome will be for the organization. Many listeners to such a forecast expect leaders to be better informed and have a more comprehensive view than they do—and really want to hear what you expect and what worries you in that forecast. Looking at the future in an open way, not as a sales pitch for your ideas, will likely give a much more accurate look, and that honest look shared with the community is likely to help the community be better prepared to do the hard work of change.

by Patrick Farrell

The notion of control—organizational control–the ability to issue commands and make things happen is alluring. In the midst of a change process, it sounds like control of a wide range of elements is the only way to be sure all the pieces work like they should to get the result you want. Further, if a senior leader is responsible for the outcome of the effort, it may seem the only way to carry out the responsibility properly is to have final say on every key element and how they will fit together.

In my experience, this way of thinking is widely held, frequently espoused, and in most cases, not useful.

How much control should senior leaders give up during a change project?

I suggest senior leaders think carefully about the elements of a change project, both present and future, and the key decision points that are likely to occur. For the moment, accept the asymmetry of responsibility or accountability with only limited control, and imagine how that approach could be helpful. In fact, I suggest senior leaders imagine how much “control” they can give to others in the project—and do so sincerely.

Ego aside, exerting control takes a lot of time and energy—bandwidth that might not be very usefully spent. Exerting control also sends a number of messages to colleagues and direct reports—you aren’t sure you trust them to make good choices, and while their efforts might inform you, your judgement is still the only significant judgment that counts. None of these messages are likely to engage others in your organization to do their best work, nor are they going to build capacity for the next change.

So—how much control should you “keep”? Enough so that you, too can own the results going forward.

How to be accountable during a change project.

As a senior leader, you also have the responsibility and accountability for supporting the work of those around you. In particular, you are responsible for supporting the process and work of committees you ask to do work. Members of some committees, while proud of their work, may be reluctant to be the face of the result, anticipating internal or external criticism and push-back of their conclusions (a good reminder of culture work still to be done). Want the next set of committee members to agree to serve? They will be watching what you do here. Accept the work of the committee, credit them for their energy and creativity, then own the outcome so if there are critiques, they come to you. You don’t need to defend the committee’s opinions. You do need to defend them in terms of what they did (it’s what you asked them to do) how they did it (they discussed this with you) , and what conclusions they came to (these are from the committee, but it is exactly why you asked these people to serve).

Safety and authority while overseeing a change project.

Let me change the subject for a minute to Safety and Authority. Safety is about whether and how you can use some of the perhaps unusual suggestions I make without feeling your stature is at stake—or even you job is. Authority, which I’ll comment on in a minute, is the way you view yourself and others might view you in terms of your capacity to do things. If you looked at my bio, you will know I am an older white man. You can’t see other aspects of who I am, but you might guess. For most of my administrative career in higher education, I had a ‘backup’ appointment as a tenured professor. This adds to a fairly privileged position from which to make choices, take chances, and deal with the consequences if things go way wrong. Readers may or may not be concerned about these issues, but it’s useful to recognize your own situation—and that of others. I am not suggesting you don’t take risks, but be smart about them and take ones that will really matter.

I mention Authority here as a shorthand to recognize that my experiences, for example with giving control to others, come from a starting point in which my authority wasn’t really questioned. I realize not everyone reading this is in that situation. I hope the suggestions I make are useful and applicable, even if your situation has challenges mine does not.

Let me return to my starting topic. Control, and the related issues of trust and engagement. These are interrelated, and I encourage leaders with power or control to think carefully about how to delegate (really delegate, not cosmetically delegate) to others, not as a favor but as recognition that they may be in a better position to make a good decision. For those decision responsibilities you need to retain—don’t apologize but be clear how and why you will exercise that responsibility.

Are there other perspectives on Control?

My colleague Katherine Sanders and I have decided to write on a common topic, each from our own experience and perspective. You can find Katherine’s post on this topic at (Blog by Katherine Sanders of Sanders Consulting). We are starting a discussion thread on LinkedIn on this title, and invite folks who would like to comment or contribute their own view to go to either of our LinkedIn profiles and look for the post you want to comment on or add to.

Forecasting as Part of a Change Initiative