Change Management as Problem Finding and Problem Solving
By Fred Nickols
Overview
Problem solving offers a useful framework for thinking about change and the change management process. As this article will show, the structures of the two processes are similar and questions concerning means, ends and means-end relationships are common to both. Moreover, these questions receive differing emphasis depending on the organizational placement of the person asking them (i.e., whether the person is in a core, buffer or perimeter unit, or is a member of staff or senior management). Table 1 below posits the relationships just mentioned and serves as a “map” for the balance of this article.
Table 1: Problem Solving and Change Management
Common |
Focus of the Questions |
Organizational |
How? |
Means |
Core & Perimeter Units |
What? |
Ends |
Buffer & Perimeter Units |
Why? |
Means-End Relationships |
Staff & Senior Management |
But first, let’s review the structural similarities between change management and problem solving.
Structural Similarities
Warner Burke (2004), in a recent OD Practitioner article, noted that Beckhard & Harris (1987) described a three-stage process of planned change: present state, transition state and future state. As Newell & Simon (1972) observed about the problem solving process, it is a matter of moving from the problem state to the solved state. In both cases, diagnosis or problem analysis is generally acknowledged as essential. Goals are set and achieved at various levels and in various areas or functions. Ends and means are discussed and related to one another. Careful planning is accompanied by efforts to obtain buy-in, support and commitment. The net effect is a transition from one state to another in a planned, orderly fashion. Clearly, the change management and the problem solving processes have much in common.
Unfortunately, the word “problem” carries with it connotations that some people prefer to avoid. They choose instead to use the word “opportunity.” This is because some people view a problem as a bad situation, one that shouldn’t have been allowed to happen in the first place, and for which someone is likely to be punished — if the guilty party (or a suitable scapegoat) can be identified. For the purposes of this paper, we will set aside any cultural or personal preferences regarding the use of “problem” or “opportunity.” From a rational, analytical perspective, a problem is nothing more than a situation requiring action but in which the required action is not known. Hence, there is a requirement to search for a solution, a course of action that will lead to the solved state. This search activity is known as “problem solving.”
From the preceding discussion, it follows that “problem finding” is the search for situations requiring action. Whether we choose to call these situations “problems” (because they are troublesome or spell bad news), or whether we choose to call them “opportunities” (because of the sensitivities mentioned above or because the time is ripe to exploit a situation) is immaterial. In both cases, the practical matter is one of identifying and settling on a course of action that will bring about some desired and predetermined change in the situation.
The Change Problem
At the heart of change management lays the change problem, that is, a future state to be realized, a current state to be left behind, and a structured, organized process for getting from the one to the other. The change problem might be large or small in scope and scale, and it might focus on individuals or groups, on one or more divisions or departments, the entire organization, or one or more aspects of the organization’s environment.
At a conceptual level, the change problem is a matter of moving from one state (A) to another state (A’). Moving from A to A’ is typically accomplished as a result of setting up and achieving three types of goals: transform, reduce, and apply. Transform goals are concerned with identifying differences between the two states. Reduce goals are concerned with determining ways of eliminating these differences. Apply goals are concerned with putting into play operators that actually effect the elimination of these differences (Newell & Simon, 1972).
As the preceding goal types suggest, the analysis of a change problem will at various times focus on defining the outcomes of the change effort, on identifying the changes necessary to produce these outcomes, and on finding and implementing ways and means of making the required changes. In simpler terms, the change problem can be treated as smaller problems having to do with the how, what, and why of change.
Change as a “How” Problem (Focus on Means)
The change problem is often expressed, at least initially, in the form of a “how” question. How do we get people to be more open, to assume more responsibility, to be more creative? How do we introduce self-managed teams in Department W? How do we change over from System X to System Y in Division Z? How do we move from a mainframe-centered computing environment to one that accommodates and integrates PCs? How do we get this organization to be more innovative, competitive, or productive? How do we raise more effective barriers to market entry by our competitors? How might we more tightly bind our suppliers to us? How do we reduce cycle times? In short, the initial formulation of a change problem is means-centered, with the goal state more or less implied. There is a reason why the initial statement of a problem is so often means-centered and we will touch on it later. For now, let’s examine the other two ways in which the problem might be formulated — as “what” or as “why” questions.
Change as a “What” Problem (Focus on Ends)
As was pointed out in the preceding section, to frame the change effort in the form of “how” questions is to focus the effort on means. Diagnosis is assumed or not performed at all. Consequently, the ends sought are not discussed. This might or might not be problematic. To focus on ends requires the posing of “what” questions. What are we trying to accomplish? What changes are necessary? What indicators will signal success? What standards apply? What measures of performance are we trying to affect?
Change as a “Why” Problem (Focus on Means-Ends Relationships)
Ends and means are relative notions, not absolutes; that is, something is an end or a means only in relation to something else. Thus, chains and networks of ends-means relationships often have to be traced out before one finds the “true” ends of a change effort. In this regard, “why” questions prove extremely useful.
Consider the following hypothetical dialogue between a client and an internal OD consultant as an illustration of tracing out ends-means relationships. The client has asserted, “People need to be more creative.”
Consultant: Why do people need to be more creative?
Client: I’ll tell you why! Because we have to change the way we do things and we need ideas about how to do that.
Consultant: Why do we have to change the way we do things?
Client: Because they cost too much and take too long.
Consultant: Why do they cost too much?
Client: Because we pay higher wages than any of our competitors.
Consultant: Why do we pay higher wages than our competitors?
Client: Because our productivity used to be higher, too, but now it’s not. I get it now! The true aim is to improve productivity! Now we can get started!
Consultant: Maybe…maybe not. Keep going. Why does productivity need to be improved?
Client: To increase profits.
Consultant: Why do profits need to be increased?
Client: To improve earnings per share.
Consultant: Why do earnings per share need to be improved?
Client: To attract additional capital.
Consultant: Why is additional capital needed?
Client: We need to fund research aimed at developing the next generation of products.
Consultant: Why do we need a new generation of products?
Client: Because our competitors are rolling them out faster than we are and gobbling up market share. So that’s it! We need to reduce cycle times! Can we get started now?
Consultant: Sure! Why do things take so long?
To ask “why” questions is to get at the ultimate purposes of functions and to open the door to finding new and better ways of performing them. Why do we do what we do? Why do we do it the way we do it? Asking “why” questions also gets at the ultimate purposes of people, but that’s a different matter altogether and one we’ll not go into in this paper.
The Approach Taken Reflects Organizational Placement
The emphasis placed on the three types of questions just mentioned reflects the manager’s mindset, that is, the tendency to think along certain lines depending on where the manager is situated in the organization. Our placement in the organization typically defines the scope and scale of the kinds of changes with which we will become involved, and the nature of the changes with which we will be concerned. Thus, the systems people tend to be concerned with technology and technological developments, the marketing people with customer needs and competitive activity, the legal people with legislative and other regulatory actions, and so on. Also, the higher up we are in the hierarchy, the longer the time perspective and the wider the range of issues with which we must be concerned.
For the most part, changes and the change problems they present are problems of adaptation, that is, they require of the organization that it adjust to an ever-changing set of circumstances. But, either as a result of continued, cumulative compounding of adaptive maneuvers that were nothing more than band-aids, or as the result of sudden changes so significant as to call for a redefinition of the organization, there are times when the changes that must be made are deep and far-reaching. At such times, the design of the organization itself is called into question.
Organizations frequently survive the people who establish them. AT&T and IBM are two ready examples. At some point it becomes the case that such organizations have been designed by one group of people but are being operated or run by another. (It has been said of the United States Navy that, “It was designed by geniuses to be run by idiots.”) Successful organizations resolve early on the issue of structure, that is, the definition, placement and coordination of functions and people. Other people then have to live with this design and, because the ends have already been established, these other people are chiefly concerned with means. This is why so many problem-solving efforts start out focused on means.
Some organizations are designed to buffer their core operations from turbulence in the environment. In such organizations all units fit into one of three categories: core, buffer, and perimeter (Thompson, 1967).
In core units (e.g., systems and operations), coordination is achieved through standardization, that is, adherence to routine. In buffer units (e.g., upper management and staff or support functions), coordination is achieved through planning. In perimeter units (e.g., sales, marketing, and customer service), coordination is achieved through mutual adjustment.
People in core units, buffered as they are from environmental turbulence and with a history of relying on adherence to standardized procedures, typically focus on “how” questions. People in buffer units, responsible for performance through planning, often ask “what” questions. People in the perimeter units are as accountable as anyone else for performance and frequently for performance of a financial nature. They can be heard asking “what” and “how” questions. “Why” questions are generally asked by people with no direct responsibility for day-to-day operations or results. The group most able to take this long-term or strategic view is the cadre of senior executives responsible for the continued well-being of the firm: top management. When the design of the firm is called into question or, more significantly, if it is to be altered, it is top management who must decide to do so.
Finally, when organizational redefinition and redesign prove necessary, all people in all units must concern themselves with all three sets of questions or the changes made will not stand the test of time.
Recap
Problems may be formulated in terms of “how,” “what” and “why” questions. Which formulation is used depends on where in the organization the person posing the question or formulating the problem is situated, and where the organization is situated in its own life cycle.
- “How” questions tend to cluster in core units.
- “What” questions tend to cluster in buffer units.
- People in perimeter units tend to ask “what” and “how” questions.
- “Why” questions are typically the responsibility of top management.
In turbulent times, everyone must be concerned with everything.
References
Beckhard, R. & Harris, R. T. (1987). Organizational transitions: Managing complex change (2 nd Ed). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Burke, W. W. (2004). “Organization development: What we know and what we need to know going forward.” OD Practitioner; Vol 36, No 3 (pp. 4-8).
Newell, A. & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
About the Author
Fred Nickols was trained as an OD specialist in the United States Navy. Upon
leaving the Navy, he became a trainer, writer, consultant and executive. He headed
up several small consulting firms and held executive-level internal consulting
positions with a financial services firm and a large, non-profit educational
services organization. Fred can be reached at: