R:\Bau\Blog >_
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
Four approaches to change management
Innovation drives change. Change requires innovation. Innovation and organizational change are so intertwined it almost feels disingenuous to untangle them. How can service designers empower change leaders in top-down and bottom-up change processes?
Just like design, change can be seen as a verb (the act or process of becoming different, or making something or someone different), a countable noun (the final result or outcome of the change activity or process), and an uncountable noun (the situation or process of change).
Following this train of thought, I have devised a two-by-two matrix to capture four distinctive approaches to change management. While it is admittedly impossible to encapsulate every single change theory in a single matrix, the purpose is simply to facilitate a discussion about how service design can support and drive change. It also serves as a reminder that not all change theories are by nature top-down, sequential, and outcome-driven (see figure below).
Figure 1. Four high-level approaches to change management (Bau, 2020).
One dimension in the matrix explores whether the change process seems inherently planned or is in fact emergent. A planned process implies deliberate, coordinated, and integrated actions across the organisation. An emergent process implies autonomous or semi-autonomous actions within the organisation that may or may not become coordinated and integrated over time.
The other dimension explores whether the change outcome is inherently planned or emergent. Planned outcomes in terms of organizational quests, long-term goals, vision statements, etc., are determined more or less from the outset and imposed over time. Emergent outcomes materialize over time, shaped through the qualities and capabilities of the organisation. Furthermore, planned and unplanned actions will have intended and unintended consequences, and internal and external factors may push change in unknown directions.
Subsequently, each quadrant in the matrix represents a distinctive, high-level approach to change management, with specific metaphors, characteristics, strategies, and benefits. There is no winner or best approach; given context, situational factors, leadership philosophy, and organizational culture, any one of these four approaches (or combinations thereof) might be deemed effective.
The four approaches to change management are:
Directed change – like winning hearts and minds in occupied territories. 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. According to proponents, 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).
Guided change – like wandering into the unknown with sherpas by your side. 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. According to proponents, 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).
Self-directed change – like jazz improvisation, which is all about studious practice and being in the moment (O’Donnell, 2012). Organizations are complex, adaptive systems operating in diverse, dynamic, and interconnected environments. The system continually evolves through a cycle of interactions, emergence, and non-linear feedback loops. Leaders should set teams and employees free to self-organize, interact, adapt, and learn. According to proponents, 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 is based on complexity and chaos theory (Stacey, 1996).
Darwinian change – like Battle Royale (the 2000 Japanese dystopian thriller). 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 come with fresh perspectives, experiment with new ideas, battle for attention, and fight for resources. The ‘fittest’ ideas make the cut and get adopted. According to proponents, this is the best way to drive first-order and second-order change 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). This approach is inspired by van de Ven and Poole’s single and dual-motor change theories (1995).
Service designers can become effective change agents in all four change approaches:
Directed change. Service designers help leaders make the case for change through compelling, human-centered North Stars, stories, concepts, value cases, etc. The most important service design roles in this type of change are The Storyteller, The Navigator, and The Maker.
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. The most important service design roles are The Servant Leader, The Sensemaker, and the Maker.
Self-directed change. Service designers create the conditions for change, creativity, and collaborative play by helping change leaders ‘loosen’ or ‘tighten’ the system. The most important service designer roles are The Servant Leader, The Sensemaker, and The Creator.
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). As the ‘game designer,’ the most important service design roles are The Servant Leader, The Navigator, and The Creator.
To learn more about the four approaches to change management and the critical roles service designers play, please check out my article ‘Service Design to the Rescue’ in Touchpoint Vol. 11 No. 3 (Bau, 2020). (Touchpoint is the journal of service design published by SDN; in this issue, you will find plenty of interesting articles about the intersection of service design and change management.)
References
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 9). 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.
Climbing to the top • 2
The mountain guide as a metaphor in service design
Photo by Damir Spanic on Unsplash
Metaphors can be used to explain abstract concepts by identifying hidden similarities between two unrelated entities. What can we learn about service design by comparing the certified mountain guide with the seasoned service designer?
In this blog post, I will highlight the final three similarities between the certified mountain guide and the seasoned service designer:
Utilizing tools to tackle complex problems
Simplifying and de-stressing the experience
Committing to life-long learning and continuous improvement
The first two similarities (Planning and thinking ahead, and Managing and mitigating risk) are covered in the previous blog post.
3. Utilizing tools to tackle complex problems
Before each tour, the mountain guide assembles a bespoke toolbox to tackle specific problems that will or may occur. Tools include climbing gear (ropes, slings, carabiners, quickdraws, etc.), climbing techniques, and fall-protection systems. Individual tools may not be that hard to learn, but it takes plenty of knowledge, practice, and experience to know which tool or tools to use in specific situations.
During the tour, the guide will identify viable solutions for the situation at hand and find the best possible one by weighing arguments for and against. Some solutions may create new problems ‘further down the road,’ and some situations may lack satisfactory solutions altogether.
Furthermore, most problems addressed in innovation projects are by their very nature wicked (complex, ambiguous, interconnected, unstable, etc.), which means it is inherently challenging for the team to truly understand the solution space and to fully explore the solution space.*
* See Buchanan (1992) for a solid overview of Rittel’s wicked problem approach (in the context of design thinking)
4. Simplifying and de-stressing the experience
Mountain guides appreciate how important the climbing experience is for clients (who are spending good money and valuable vacation time). The emotional job of the guide is to simplify, de-stress, and augment the experience as much as possible, especially for inexperienced climbers.
Acting as instructors, teachers, and trainers, mountain guides devise courses of action, give concise instructions, test for understanding, and provide encouragement to make the climbing experience easier, smoother, faster, and safer for everyone. This puts less pressure on the climbers and makes the experience more enjoyable.
5. Committing to life-long learning and continuous improvement
Elite fitness levels. Genuine passion for mountaineering and mountain climbing. Years of dedication to the craft. Commitment to life-long learning and continuous improvement. A rigorous certification process that may take years to complete. Becoming a certified mountain guide is certainly no walk in the park.
Mountain guides need to master and balance three types of skills (imbalances may have grave consequences in unforgiving settings):
Physical skills – strength, power, endurance, mobility, balance, etc.
Technical skills – bouldering, sport climbing, traditional climbing, ice climbing, resort skiing, Nordic skiing, backcountry skiing, endurance running, snowmobiling, orienteering, weather-map reading, medical training, self-rescue skills, gear repair, etc.
Psychological skills – performing at your best under intense stress; exercising sound judgment in critical situations; communicating and instructing effectively under pressure; managing expectations, fears, hopes, and desires (yours as well as others); exercising patience (especially with others); eliminating/avoiding individual and team biases (that will cloud judgment and dim perceptions of risk); etc.
To become the best of the best, mountain guides believe in life-long learning and continuous improvement. They are always looking for ways to move faster and safer by simplifying things, cutting out unnecessary steps, removing fancy/unnecessary devices, and reducing weight (‘lightness’). They stay on top of innovative technologies and techniques, experiment with tools, read books, attend clinics/workshops, and learn from fellow climbers and guides.
In service design, it takes comprehensive knowledge, a considerable amount of concentrated practice, and a commitment to continuous learning to fully:
- master the rather extensive toolbox for people-centered research, service innovation, design thinking, HCD, UX, agile, etc.
- master the distinct flavors or genres of service design projects (growth/disruption, customer excellence, employee engagement, operational excellence, ethical circularity, etc.)
- master the idiosyncrasies and intricacies of specific service sectors (healthcare, energy, hospitality, retail, etc.)
- master the process to drive innovation and tackle wicked problems in complex organizations and ecosystems
- master both upstream and downstream projects equally well (upstream = exploring, envisioning, strategizing, conceptualizing; downstream = designing, building, piloting, launching, refining)
- master the art and science of empowering multi-disciplinary teams, co-creating with clients and other stakeholders, and transferring designerly ways of working
Pros and cons
Just like any metaphor, the mountain guide puts the spotlight on certain aspects of thinking and working as a service designer (and neglects or downplays others).
Advantages
Highlights the roles seasoned service designers can perform in projects (guide, facilitator, instructor, teacher, and trainer)
Highlights the need to carefully plan and prepare projects before kick-off
Highlights the importance of constantly identifying, assessing, prioritizing, and mitigating risks during projects
Highlights the importance of assembling the right toolbox to solve complex (wicked) problems
Highlights the need to simplify, de-stress, and augment the experience, especially for inexperienced clients and team members
Highlights the extensive technical and psychological skills required to become masterful
Highlights the commitment to life-long learning and continuous learning
Disadvantages
Does not stress the value of teamwork, open communication, adaptability, self-management, co-creation, diversity, non-hierarchical structures, continuous feedback, retrospectives, etc. (here the metaphor of a high-performing team of experienced climbers would be more apt)
References
Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers. The story of success. Little, Brown and Company.
SDN. (2020). SDN Accreditation Programme for service design professionals and masters.
In terms of mountain climbing and mountain guides (two topics I admittedly knew precious little about before collecting my thoughts), I leaned heavily on The Mountain Guide Manual by Marc Chauvin and Rob Coppolillo. I am also indebted to several blogs and websites about mountaineering in general and mountain guides in particular.
2/2
Climbing to the top • 1
The mountain guide as a metaphor in service design
Photo by Damir Spanic on Unsplash
Metaphors can be used to explain abstract concepts by identifying hidden similarities between two unrelated entities. What can we learn about service design by comparing the certified mountain guide with the seasoned service designer?
The core job of a mountain guide is to guide and assist client climbers up and down the mountain in a safe, efficient, and rewarding way. The guide will significantly improve the climbing experience, especially if the climbing party lacks the expertise, equipment, and/or experience required for the terrain ahead.
Climbing parties may face quite a few hazards during the tour: the terrain itself; inclement weather; extreme temperatures; performance anxiety; stress; dehydration; fatigue/exhaustion; illness; physical injuries; equipment failure; getting lost; and fellow climbers (who may be overconfident or underconfident in their abilities, often due to inexperience).
This means that the guide is constantly handling complex situations and making life-or-death decisions, based on extensive experience, tons of practice, rigorous planning, solid problem-solving capabilities, and a sound approach for on-the-spot decision-making (to avoid personal and team biases).
In two blog posts, I will highlight five similarities between the certified mountain guide and the seasoned service designer:
Planning and thinking ahead
Managing and mitigating risk
Utilizing tools to tackle complex problems
Simplifying and de-stressing the experience
Committing to life-long learning and continuous improvement
1. Planning and thinking ahead
The mountain guide is responsible for the safety of the climbing party. Before each tour, the guide is planning and thinking ahead by:
Reviewing weather forecasts and snowpack conditions
Collecting data about the location, frequency, and severity of objective hazards
Obtaining advice, tips, and general information on how to successfully complete (or protect) particular climbing routes
Gauging the experience and capabilities of the climbing party
Planning reasonable routes for conditions and climbers
Determining options and bailout possibilities
Making hard choices about food, water, clothing, and equipment (it would be nigh impossible to carry everything you want)
Gathering the climbers, providing information, determining ground rules, setting realistic expectations, and strengthening bonds
- What is the overarching need (or rationale) for the project? What type of solution is envisioned?* What are the desired outcomes?
- Who are we targeting, and why? Who will be affected, and how? Who are we intentionally including and excluding, and why?
- What explicit and implicit assumptions are we making in this project? How do we reveal hidden biases and illuminate blindspots?
- What external and internal forces are driving change and resisting change respectively?
- How will organizational quests, strategies, beliefs, sub-cultures, and processes shape the project (or vice versa)?
- How does the project fit into the innovation portfolio? What level of risk and uncertainty is the organization willing to accept?
- What interdependencies exist with other solutions and/or components in the business ecosystem?
- What constraints do we need to take into consideration?
- What are our knowledge gaps about market segments and target audiences?
- What is the right approach/process for the challenge or problem at hand? What tools and spaces do we need for our process?
- When and how often should we engage users and other stakeholders throughout the process?
- What is the right timing and timeframe?
- What obstacles are we facing in this project and how do we overcome them?
- What does success look like and how do you measure it?
- What type of capabilities do we need? Who should we recruit or partner with?
- How can we empower and engage team members, especially if the team is inexperienced or newly formed?
* For a discipline-neutral classification of potential solution areas (rather than predetermined solutions), see Richard Buchanan’s four broad areas in which design is explored (1992) and GK VanPatter’s process model Design 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 (Jones, 2009).
2. Managing and mitigating risk
The mountain guide is constantly identifying, assessing, and prioritizing risks and constantly finding ways to control or mitigate them. As the climbing party is ascending or descending, the guide controls the situation at hand by:
seeing and assessing the terrain above and below the group
observing current and changing conditions (inclement weather, avalanche danger, rock fall potential, etc.)
weighing all the evidence and exercising sound judgment
identifying the right decision points and routes to scale the terrain in a safe way
choosing appropriate tools, techniques, and fall-protection systems to manage risk effectively
modifying plans on the fly (because of fatigue, changing weather conditions, etc.)
determining contingency paths in case of emergency
providing clear, unambiguous instructions to the group
exercising patience with inexperienced climbers
managing the expectations, fears, hopes, and desires of individual climbers
(to be continued)
References
Buchanan, R. (1992, Spring). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.
Jones, P. (2009, March). Design 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0. The rise of visual sensemaking. NextD Journal. NextDesign Leadership Institute.
In terms of mountain climbing and mountain guides (two topics I admittedly knew precious little about before collecting my thoughts), I leaned heavily on The Mountain Guide Manual by Marc Chauvin and Rob Coppolillo. I am also indebted to several blogs and websites about mountaineering in general and mountain guides in particular.
1/2
Bringing down the house • 3
Theatre as a metaphor in services marketing and service design
Photo by Nikola Bikar on Unsplash
Theater has been used for decades as a metaphor to highlight the differences between services marketing and product marketing. Standing on the shoulders of giants, I am using my version of the 7P framework to draw parallels between theater productions and service experiences.
(Product, Place, Physical Evidence, People, and Process were covered in previous blog posts.)
Promotion: Integrated marketing, sales, customer education, etc.
For theater productions, this means attracting sponsors, selling tickets, balancing demand and capacity, building loyalty, educating the audience (for example through podcasts and talkbacks), etc. For service providers, the equivalent would be carrying out integrated marketing activities before, during, and after the delivery of the service to attract, retain, and grow the right customers. To balance demand and capacity, service providers can either adjust capacity to demand or shape demand patterns (e.g., by shrinking or stimulating demand through innovative pricing strategies) (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016).
Price: Revenue streams, pricing strategies, etc.
For for-profit theaters, the main revenue streams are corporate sponsorships, membership fees, ticket sales, concessions, merchandise, corporate events, etc. An effective pricing strategy for tickets must do two things: attract the right audience(s) to the show and raise sufficient income to make a profit; the difficulty is that these two aims are often at odds. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the theater typically attracts multiple audiences, which may require multiple pricing strategies. (Caird, 2012). Service providers can utilize a wide range of business models, from freemium services to multi-sided platforms. Just like theaters, service providers need to determine the right pricing strategy (or strategies) based on costs, perceived value, and the competition (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016).
Work is theater
Taking the theater metaphor one step further, Joseph Pine and James Gilmore published the influential book Welcome to the Experience Economy: Work is theatre & every business a stage in 1999. To them, theater is not a metaphor (‘work as theater’), it is a model (‘work is theater’). Workers are on stage and must be directed to act accordingly.
The authors argue that companies compete not by making better products or by delivering better services but by staging better experiences. A ‘good’ experience is perceived to be meaningful, memorable, and ultimately transformative (creating a better version of ourselves).
Pine and Gilmore (1999) identified four forms of theater: platform theater, street theater, matching theater, and improv theater. For example, platform theater is the traditional theater where the script does not vary, the performance takes place in front of the audience, and the audience has little to no input into the performance. In improv theater, the actors think on their feet, responding to new and changing demands from the onlookers. According to the authors, all four types of theater have their place in the business world.
Pros and cons
Just like any metaphor, theater puts the spotlight on certain aspects of the production and delivery of services (and neglects or downplays others).
Advantages
Highlights the three-act structure of service experiences (acts and scenes)
Highlights the importance of roles and scripts to plan, manage, and control behaviors
Highlights the importance of place and physical evidence to manage expectations and determine service quality
Highlights the contribution of backstage/invisible aspects to the effective delivery of services
Highlights the need for a visionary and creative artistic director to set the vision and bring all of the elements together
Highlights the importance of cross-capability collaboration to plan, design, stage, and support live performances
Highlights the importance of enabling processes to attract, retain, and grow the right talent (casting and rehearsals)
Highlights the importance of customer education (to understand and enjoy the experience)
Highlights the need to balance demand and capacity (e.g., through innovative pricing strategies)
Disadvantages
Does not work as well for services that are highly personalized and customized (which require customers to become co-creators)
Does not work as well for services based on automation and self-service
The audience typically plays a more passive role in theater performances than in high-contact service experiences
Most service providers do not have the equivalent of the artistic director
References
Caird, J. (2012). Theatre tickets: When is the price right? The Guardian.
Pine, J. & Gilmore, J. (1999). Welcome to the Experience Economy: Work is theatre & every business a stage. Harvard Business School Press.
Wirtz, J. & Lovelock, C. (2016). Services Marketing: People, technology, strategy (8th ed.). World Scientific Publishing.
3/3
Bringing down the house • 2
Theatre as a metaphor in services marketing and service design
Photo by Nikola Bikar on Unsplash
Theater has been used for decades as a metaphor to highlight the differences between services marketing and product marketing. Standing on the shoulders of giants, I am using my version of the 7P framework to draw parallels between theater productions and service experiences.
(Product, Place, and Physical Evidence were covered in the previous blog post.)
People: Customers, frontline employees, backstage teams
The audience. For service experiences, the equivalent would be customers and other participants. Far from playing a passive role, customers are often (heavily) engaged in the co-production and co-delivery of the service; in essence, customers become partial employees (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016).
Actors/performers. For service experiences, the equivalent would be frontline employees interacting with customers to co-produce and co-deliver the service over time. Needless to say, frontline employees are extremely important for the overall perception and performance of the service (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016).
The artistic director. In the world of theater, the director interprets the playwright’s script; sets the creative vision for the production; hires the right artistic and technical talent; plans the production together with dramaturgs, choreographers, designers, and technicians; runs rehearsals and provides critique; and ultimately coordinates all elements into the finished production. In service organizations, the equivalent is arguably hard to find – perhaps the visionary, people-centered CX leader, CMO, or CEO?
Many other people are involved in planning, designing, staging, and supporting live performances – such as the producer, the production manager, the stage manager, the music director, the choreographer, the dramaturg, the costume designer, the lighting designer, the set designer, the sound designer, the technical director, the master electrician, the master carpenter, the sound engineer, the props master, the build crew, and the run crew. In service organizations, the equivalent would be multidisciplinary innovation & design teams (for envisioning, designing, and piloting new or revamped services), cross-functional technology teams (for building digital products and digitally-enabled services), and cross-functional service delivery teams (for co-producing and co-delivering services with the customers).
Process: Enabling and core processes for service production & delivery
Production and delivery processes. From the customer’s perspective, live performances and services are experiences. From the provider’s perspective, theatrical productions and services are processes that need to be designed and managed to deliver the desired customer experience. (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016) These co-production and co-delivery processes can be designed (or redesigned) using techniques/tools such as value stream mapping, flowcharting, service blueprinting, and process mapping. Identifying potential fail points at the design stage and designing ‘fail-proof’ services can greatly reduce the frequency and severity of service failures (Shostack, 1984).
Onstage/visible and backstage/invisible components. Back in 1982, Lynn Shostack (1984) introduced the service blueprint, emphasizing the need to include the invisible or hidden aspects of the service delivery which may impact the overall performance (in terms of service productivity and quality). While she did not explicitly use the theater metaphor, the blueprint was split into two sections divided by the ‘line of visibility.’ In 2007, Mary Jo Bitner showed the evolution of Shostack’s original service blueprint into five interconnected components (imagine layers, stacks, or swimlanes): Physical Evidence, Customer Actions, Onstage Contact Employee Actions, Backstage Contact Employee Actions, and Support Processes (Bitner et al., 2007).
Roles and scripts. Taking a leaf from theater production and performers, employees and customers take on specific roles, act out their parts, and stay in character following scripts, conventions, social norms, unwritten rules, etc. (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016). Service scripts determine the sequences of behavior employees (and customers) are expected to learn and follow during service production and delivery. To reduce variability and ensure uniform quality, many service dramas are tightly scripted. Highly customizable services typically require heavy customer involvement and more flexible scripts. (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016) On the flip side, scripts might (a) encourage ‘mindless’ and ‘habitual’ behaviors, and/or (b) make employees less attentive to non-verbal cues from customers (Harris et al., 2003).
Since high-contact services and experiences are so dependent on face-to-face interactions between customers and employees, two enabling processes worth highlighting are casting and rehearsals.
Casting. The artistic director works with the casting director to find the right people for the roles. They pay attention to training, experience, and past accomplishments; physical characteristics and vocal technique; personality traits, personal liveliness, and stage presence; ability to understand the play; suitability for the style of play; and general attitude, cooperativeness, and ‘directability.’ In service organizations, the equivalent to casting would be attracting, recruiting, and onboarding the right talent as well as staffing the service delivery teams with the right people across the organization.
Rehearsals. In rehearsals, actors interpret the script, rehearse their parts, memorize lines, discover new avenues of interpretation, etc. In service organizations, the equivalent to rehearsals would be team building, training, feedback, recognition, incentives, etc., to motivate and engage employees.
(To be continued)
References
Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L., & Morgan F.N. (2007). Service blueprinting: A practical technique for service innovation. Center for Services Leadership, Arizona State University.
Harris R., Harris K. & Baron S. (2003). Theatrical service experiences: Dramatic script development with employees. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14, 184–99.
Shostack, L. (1984). Designing services that deliver. Harvard Business Review.
Wirtz, J. & Lovelock, C. (2016). Services Marketing: People, technology, strategy (8th ed.). World Scientific Publishing.
2/3