Going for gold • 6
Inspired by an article in Harvard Business Review about the underlying quests for corporate transformation (Anand & Barsoux, 2017), I have identified seven arenas where the power of service design can transform organizations, teams, and people. In this blog post, I explore Service Design for Organizational Change.
6. Service Design for Organizational Change
Purpose: Crafting approaches, strategies, services, processes, and tools to empower change leaders in top-down and bottom-up change processes.
Note: See also my blog posts Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes and Comparing & contrasting innovation & change roles.
Project archetypes:
Designing for directed change. Comparable to winning hearts and minds in occupied territories, directed change is a top-down, leadership-driven approach to change supported by a compelling vision, deliberate action plans, and ‘scientific’ evidence. Employees are spurred or forced into action through a series of top-down interventions. Proponents argue that this is the fastest way to drive first-order and second-order change. Resistance to change is typically high but (ultimately) futile. This approach is based on the Empirical–Rational, Power–Coercive, and Normative–Re-educative change strategies by Chin & Benne (1969) and Thurley & Wirdenius (1973).
Designing for Darwinian change. Comparable to Battle Royale (the 2000 Japanese dystopian thriller), Darwinian change emphasizes a survival-of-the-fittest approach within organizations. Predetermined quests, visions, long-term goals, and values function as a lighthouse to guide innovation efforts and change initiatives within the organisation (and ecosystem). Autonomous or semi-autonomous units are encouraged to bring fresh perspectives, experiment with new ideas, battle for attention, and fight for resources. The ‘fittest’ ideas make the cut and get adopted. Proponents argue this approach is the best way to drive first-order and second-order change, especially when the path to desired outcomes is deemed unclear, uncertain, or unpredictable. Resistance to the ideas of others is actively encouraged (to a certain degree) to stimulate critical thinking and drive continuous improvement. This approach draws inspiration by van de Ven and Poole’s single and dual-motor change theories (1995).
Designing for guided change. Comparable to wandering into the unknown with sherpas by your side, guided change is a bottom-up, systematic effort to improve the problem-solving capabilities of the system as well as to unlock and foster growth in the individuals and groups that make up the system. Employees are empowered to change through expert facilitation in experiential learning and action research. Proponents argue that this approach is best suited for first-order change. Resistance is minimized thanks to heavy employee involvement. This approach is based on the Action-centered change strategy by Thurley & Wirdenius (1973), the Normative–Re-educative change strategy by Chin & Benne (1969), and the experiential aspects of Organizational Development (Brown & Harvey, 2006).
Designing for self-directed change. Comparable to jazz improvisation (O’Donnell, 2012), self-directed change operates on the premise that leaders should set teams and employees free to self-organize, interact, adapt, and learn autonomously. Organisations are viewed as complex, adaptive systems operating in diverse, dynamic, and interconnected environments. These systems continuously evolve through cycles of interactions, emergence, and non-linear feedback loops. Proponents argue this approach is the best way to explain how organisations adapt, evolve, and survive in turbulent environments. Resistance is minimal or even non-existent since everybody is a change agent. This approach draws heavily from complexity and chaos theory (Stacey, 1996).
Note: While self-directed change and holacracy (as initially implemented by Zappos) may share similar goals and characteristics, the latter relies more on formalized governance structures, documented processes, decision-making protocols, and clearly defined roles and responsibilities.
Fostering a culture of innovation and change. Building and nurturing a culture of continuous innovation and change throughout the organization. This involves crafting employee-centric spaces, services, playbooks, toolkits, tools, workflows, rituals, and incentives to help leaders and teams navigate change, build resilience, foster x-capability collaboration, build creative confidence, encourage experimentation, seek continuous feedback, and capture lessons learned.
Note: For more information about top-down and bottom-up initiatives to drive innovation and change, please see my blog posts Comparing & contrasting innovation & change roles and Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes.
Complementary methodologies:
Top-down change – strategic planning models (Hoshin Kanri, scenario planning), goal-setting frameworks (MBO, OKRs), diagnostic & alignment frameworks (McKinsey 7-S Framework, Balanced Scorecard), and linear change models (Kotter, ADKAR, Burke-Litwin, Lewin).
Bottom-up change – no specific meta-models, but common concepts include experiential learning, self-organisation, decentralised decision-making, x-capability collaboration, continuous feedback and learning, continuous improvement (e.g., Kaizen), small-scale experimentation, communities of practice, and customer and/or employee-driven innovation practices (crowdsourcing, hackathons, innovation jams, etc.).
Supplementary methodologies: Lean and agile approaches to strategic planning. Employee engagement and motivation theories. EX management. Systems thinking. Design thinking. Human-centered design. Lean startup. Nudge theory and behavioral change. DEI design. Process design. Storytelling. Knowledge management.
Exploring the problem and solution spaces:
Directed change. Service designers help leaders make the case for change through compelling, human-centered North Stars, stories, concepts, value cases, etc.
Darwinian change. Service designers design the rules and set the tone for the organization-wide game of innovation (and, upon invitation, we can also take part as active players).
Guided change. Working side-by-side with expert facilitators in experiential learning and action research, service designers make bottom-up innovation happen through systemic and systematic co-creation.
Self-directed change. Service designers create the conditions for change, creativity, and collaborative play by helping change leaders ‘loosen’ or ‘tighten’ the system.
Project sponsors: CEO, CHRO, COO, CIO, SVP strategy, SVP innovation, or equivalent
Desired outcomes:
Top-down change – ↑ strategic alignment, ↑ organisational control, ↑ accountability, ↑ decision-making speed, ↑ innovation capacity, ↑ transformational innovation [arguably], ↑ risk management, ↓ resistance to change [over time], ↓ organisational waste, ↑ organisational learning [through knowledge management]
Bottom-up change – ↑ adaptability, ↑ resilience, ↑ collaboration, ↑ employee empowerment, ↑ employee engagement, ↓ resistance to change, ↑ core innovation, ↓ organisational waste [through grassroot initiatives], ↑ organisational learning [through continuous learning and knowledge sharing]
Note: For an exploration of the roles service designers can play in empowering change leaders in top-down and bottom-up change, see Bau (2020).
Service Design for Equitable Experiences will be covered in the next blog post.
References
Anand, N. & Barsoux, J-L. (2017, Nov–Dec). What everyone gets wrong about change management. Poor execution is only part of the problem. Harvard Business Review.
Bau, R. (2020). Service design to the rescue. The critical roles service designers play in organizational change. Touchpoint, 11(3), 74–79.
Brown, D. & Harvey, D. (2006). An experiential approach to Organization Development (7th ed.). California State University–Bakersfield.
Chin, R. & Benne, K. (1969). General strategies for effecting changes in human systems [Research report]. Boston University.
O’Donnell, E. (2012, April). Is improvising really improvising?
Stacey, R. (1996). Strategic management and organizational dynamics (2nd ed.). Pitman.
Thurley, K. & Wirdenius, H. (1973). Supervision: A reappraisal. Heinemann.
van de Ven, A. & Poole, M. (1995, July). Explaining development and change in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510–540.
