How we misuse change models

There are many reasons to both love and loath ‘change models’. I share many of the views on either side of the debate that seems to have been rumbling since Lean was first described and shared as a comprehensive approach to work.

Personally I’ve been involved in research, creating, sharing and using several theories and models of change over the years. Each is truly excellent – AND not perfect. The most obvious caveat is always that models are at best a representation of reality, not reality itself – hence ‘all models are wrong but some are useful’.

The caveat we don’t talk about as much is that, even with the more behaviourally aware change models, success depends on HOW they are used. Simply ensuring you’re following the advice of each separate box in the model is rarely enough. We need to ask HOW each area is working with the others. The alignment and relationships between domains in any change model are just as essential success factors as the quality of what’s happening within the domains.

Ask HOW each area is working with the others

My own experience of being in, leading and supporting teams and organisations repeatedly points to the fact that alignment and synergies are both vital and often overlooked. There’s a growing body of research exploring this issue, and much more to be done, in my view. I’ve found this principle applies with a wide range of different models used in organisational development, change and transformation, including:

• McKinsey 7S
• ADKAR
• the NHS Large Scale Change Model
• the Model for Improvement
• Belbin’s team roles
• Goleman’s leadership styles
• the Change Model for Health and Care
• the Strength Deployment Inventory
• Wilber’s four quadrant model

Plan for synergy between domains

Whatever model we’re using, we need to plan for how well each domain is working AND how well all the domains are relating and aligned with the overarching purpose. For my money, the NHS Large Scale Change Model does it best, as this principle is baked-in – but leaders can apply the both-and principle to practically any theory or model of how things work and change.

For the medically-minded, this is akin to the roles of anatomy and physiology – the work of most organs depends on both their anatomy (how they’re made up, what’s inside) AND their physiology (how they process things that come from other organs, how the communications and feedback are working).

But anyone can ‘get it’ and start achieving better success with less effort and mess. Just don’t settle for having good components / domains / building blocks – ensure they work together well.