Triangles, circles and power

[Peg Holman]

I recently met with a potential client who asked me a question I suspect
many of us get asked:

"I don't understand why I need to involve everyone in my organization in
making this change happen.  Why doesn't a cascade from sr. management down
do the trick?"

Naturally, the clear, crisp response didn't come to me until after the
meeting, but I wanted to share it because I think its the most effective way
I've ever explained this and would love to know what others think.

Here it is:

You asked me a question about using a cascade strategy for change when we
met.  Here are some
thoughts on this subject.

The cascade (i.e., the triangle you drew with senior managers, middle
managers, staff) strategy can work; I have successfully used it.  In fact,
until about 5-8 years ago, I would have said it was the best known way to
achieve change across an organization.  What has happened in the past 5-8
years is an understanding of new ways of changing organizations that are
faster, cheaper, and have a greater chance of success.  These approaches are
based upon high participation.

If the cascade is characterized by the triangle, high participation is
characterized by a circle.  The visual image is useful because it speaks to
"the catch" in high participation change.  The circle has no point where
everything comes together.  It starts with and builds a very different set
of beliefs about power and control in organizations.

An example: in the triangle model, vision is the primary responsibility of
senior management.  They articulate vision and share it with the rest of the
organization, who look for how they fit in.  In the circle model, senior
management creates an environment that invites the rest of the organization
into the work of creating shared vision.  It is created with the benefit of
many diverse perspectives and experiences, incorporating insights and ideas
that are not usually visible to senior managers.  As a result, people see
themselves in the vision sooner and begin to integrate it into their work
immediately.  This difference means change happens faster, is cheaper to do
and is less risky in terms of achieving the desired results.

But -- and this is a BIG but -- the shift in power and control implied in
this example is quite profound.  It can be a huge leap of faith for senior
managers unfamiliar with the idea of sharing power.  This often means that
organizations opt for a cascade approach even though it is slower and
costlier because the roles are much more familiar.  Ultimately, I believe
the choice depends on the type of organization you wish to create.

I hope this gives you a useful perspective on this critical question as you
shape the future of the your organization.  My hope for you is that you
create a place that allows the maximum use of the talent and creativity of
the people who are part of your work.

Peg Holman