taking advantage of using resistance to change · francis s. patrick, focused performance ... one...

Using Resistance to Change - Francis S. Patrick, Focused Performance

www.focusedperformance.com

Using Resistance to ChangeUsing Resistance to Change(and the Theory of Constraints Thinking Processes). . . to Improve Improvements

Frank PatrickFocused Performance

& The A.Y.Goldratt Institute908-874-8664


Taking Advantage ofTaking Advantage of

Using Resistance to Change - Page 2Francis S. Patrick, Focused Performance


Every change is not an improvement . . .but every improvement is a change

What tochange?

To what tochange to?

How tocause thechange?

Francis S. Patrick

Thank you for your interest in this presentation on "Taking advantage of Resistance to Change," originally presentated at the Institute of Industrial Engineers' 2001 Solutions Conference. If you have any questions or comments, or are interested in how you can use the tools described to "improve your improvements," please contact me at: (908)-874-8664 or by email at [email protected].



What is improvement?

� Every system/organization has a goal

� Improvement is the ability to achieve more “goal units” — now and in the future

� The focus of real improvement has to be theconstraint of the system — it’s “weakest link”

(The TOC perspective)

� Despite a required focus for real improvement . . .

� Proposals for improvement can come fromanywhere, and they have to be sold, because . . .

� Very few improvements can be put into effectwithout the collaboration of others



Another view of the process is involved whenchange requires someone other than yourself

� Construction - Design of a proposed solution

� Communication - Open dialogue, not monologue

� Collaboration - Ownership, buy-in, and support

Sometimes constructingthe initial solution is theeasy part.



Problems with making changes happen� Apathy and indifference

block ability to get buy-in

� Difficulty communicatingvision of a proposal

� One person’s improvementis another’s disruption

� Other initiatives conflict withthe change

� People prefer to focus ontheir own problems

� Analysis paralysis - Toomuch second-guessing

� Lack of a sense of urgency

� Unexpected obstacles popup

� Unexpected implicationspop up

� Efforts are abandonedbefore achieving expectedbenefits

� Efforts are implemented withless benefits than expected

� Value of proposed solutionsare not widely recognized

� Needed breakthroughs arehampered by a lack ofintuition

� Necessary intuition andinformation is missing fromthe solution



What is a problem? (The TOC perspective)

� Being put in a position of having to do something you would rathernot do.

� A conflict between two conditions/observations, often related tonecessary conditions of the system — a dilemma.

SystemicObjective

NecessaryCondition 1of Objective

NecessaryCondition 2of Objective

Prerequisitefor NecessaryCondition 1

Prerequisitefor NecessaryCondition 2

Conflict!Conflict!

� TOC Perspective: In the context of coherent systems, conflicts donot exist in reality (i.e., something is wrong in our understanding . . .often faulty assumptions).



Problems with making changes happen� Apathy and indifference

block ability to get buy-in

� Difficulty communicatingvision of a proposal

� One person’s improvementis another’s disruption

� Other initiatives conflict withthe change

� People prefer to focus ontheir own problems

� Analysis paralysis - Toomuch second-guessing

� Lack of a sense of urgency

� Unexpected obstacles popup

� Unexpected implicationspop up

� Efforts are abandonedbefore achieving expectedbenefits

� Efforts are implemented withless benefits than expected

� Value of proposed solutionsare not widely recognized

� Needed breakthroughs arehampered by a lack ofintuition

� Necessary intuition andinformation is missing fromthe solution



People prefer to focus on their own problems

Manageeffectively

Getmaximum

benefit fromchangeefforts

Assure thatmy piece ofthe system

workssmoothly

Focus timeand attention

on globalimprovement

(someoneelse’s issues)

Focus timeand attention

on respondingto (my) local

issues

Conflict!Conflict!

Objective

NecessaryConditions Prerequisites



Difficulty communicating vision of a proposal

Successfullyimplement

change

Demonstrateefficacy of

change

Maximize speedof change

(quicker benefit)

Pilot thesolution to

proveconcepts

Don’t pilot -Get buy-in for

full rollout

Conflict!Conflict!



Unexpected implications pop up

Managechange

effectively

Improvesystem’scapability

Avoidadding newproblems tothe system

Fix whateverneeds to be

fixed

Don’t changeanything that

will createnew problems

Conflict!Conflict!



Organizational culture is the accumulation ofhow we deal with our conflicts

Core Conflict



Use time andattention ondeveloping a

completesolution

Focus time and attention on globalimprovement

Pilot the solution to prove concepts

Fix whatever needs to be fixed

Focus time and attention on globalimprovement

Pilot the solution to prove concepts

Fix whatever needs to be fixed

A “generic” core conflict — a potentialcommon root cause of the problems




completesolution

Use time andattention onbuy-in and

collaboration

Conflict!Conflict!

Focus time and attention on responding tolocal issues

Don’t pilot - Get buy-in for full rollout

Don’t change anything that will create newproblems

Focus time and attention on responding tolocal issues

Don’t pilot - Get buy-in for full rollout

Don’t change anything that will create newproblems





completesolution


collaboration

Assure smoothimplementation

Conflict!Conflict!Assure my piece ofthe system works

smoothly

Maximize speed ofchange

Avoid adding newproblems to the

system

Assure my piece ofthe system works

smoothly

Maximize speed ofchange

Avoid adding newproblems to the

system





completesolution

Get desired“bang” forthe change

effort “buck”


collaboration

Conflict!Conflict!

Get maximum benefitfrom change efforts

Demonstrate efficacyof change

Improve system’scapability

Get maximum benefitfrom change efforts

Demonstrate efficacyof change

Improve system’scapability






effort “buck”



completesolution


collaboration

Conflict!Conflict!Manage

improvementeffectively


Manage effectively

Successfully implement change

Manage change effectively

Manage effectively

Successfully implement change

Manage change effectively



Manageimprovement

effectively


effort “buck”



completesolution


collaboration

Conflict!Conflict!


Can this conflict be at the root of our problems?How can we be sure?



What do we want to manage?Symptoms or a system of cause and effect?

Symptoms

EffectEffect

CauseCauseCauseCause

AndAnd+System

=Deming’s Profound Knowledge

• • •

“Management is prediction.”

(Can we really manage symptoms?)



Is the conflict at the root of our problems?

Pressure to use timeand attention on

developing acomplete solution

Solution details oftentake precedence,

minimizing attentionto buy-in andcollaboration

Time and attentionare very limited

commodities

Pressure to do somethingwithout enough planning

often turns into an exercisein politics and power

There is difficultycommunicating thevision of the change

Different people orfunctions face

different problems,perhaps not

addressed by thesolution

People/functions prefer tofocus on getting their ownproblems fixed, rather than

supporting the change

Other initiatives conflictwith the change Value of proposed

solutions are notwidely recognized

Proposalsuccumbs to

analysisparalysis and

second-guessing

Pressure to usetime and attention

on buy-in andcollaboration




Other initiativesconflict with the

change

Other initiativesconflict with the

change

Value of proposedsolutions are notwidely recognized



commodities


commodities

There is a lack of asense of urgency

for the change

Apathy andindifference block

ability to get buy-inand collaboration

Proposal succumbsto analysis paralysis

and second-guessing

Proposal succumbsto analysis paralysis

and second-guessing

One person’simprovement is

another’s disruption

Necessary intuition andinformation is missing

from the solution

Collaboration of others isnecessary to fully

understand the effects andrequirements of the change




Necessary intuitionand information ismissing from the

solution

Necessary intuitionand information ismissing from the

solution

Neededbreakthroughs arehampered by a lack

of intuition

Significant and valuablechanges usually require

new ways of thinkingabout the situation

Unexpectedimplications

pop up

Unexpectedobstacles

pop up

Efforts areimplemented withless benefits than

expected

Efforts areabandoned beforeachieving expected

benefits

There is a lackof a sense of

urgency for thechange

There is a lackof a sense of

urgency for thechange



Assumptions -Assumptions - 1. Not enough time to do both effectively 1. Not enough time to do both effectively 2. Buy-in and solution building are different 2. Buy-in and solution building are different

Manageimprovement

effectively


effort “buck”



completesolution


collaboration

Conflict!Conflict!

What perpetuates the core conflict?



Are buy-in and solution-building reallydifferent endeavors?

Solution Building

� Define the problem

� Identify a breakthrough

� Flesh out details of asolution

� Identify and deal withside effects of the solution

� Figure out how to makeit happen

� Implement the solution

Buy-in for Collaboration

� Agree on the problem andits value (WIIFM?)

� Agree on a direction forsolution

� Agree that solution will dealwith the defined problem

� Agree that no undesirable(side) effects of the solutionwill occur

� Agree on an implementationplan

� Agree to act



Assumptions -Assumptions - 1. Not enough time to do both effectively 1. Not enough time to do both effectively 2. Buy-in and solution building are different 2. Buy-in and solution building are different

Manageimprovement

effectively


effort “buck”



completesolution


collaboration

Conflict!Conflict!

What replaces the core conflict?

Develop buy-inwith a processthat is aligned

with, supportedby, and maybeeven includedin the process

for problemsolving.

Develop buy-inwith a processthat is aligned

with, supportedby, and maybeeven includedin the process

for problemsolving.



The Theory of ConstraintsTOC - What is it?

� A systematic approach to managing and improving human-based systems by adapting and applying proven methodsused by the hard sciences to understand and manage thematerial world.

� A systematic process of on-going improvement

� A comprehensive and coherent set of logical thinking toolsand applications designed to maximize effectiveness of theimprovement process

� Problem Solving - the TOC Thinking Processes (TP)

� Daily Management Skills - taken from the TP, used toenhance vital management skills

� Proven Solutions - generic solutions in various functionalareas, created and customized through the TP



“If..., then...” and “In order to..., we must...”- Sufficiency and necessity-based logic

Sufficiency“If..., Then...”

Necessity“In Order to..., We Must...”

Categories of LegitimateReservationClarity, sufficiency,additional cause, etc...

RequirementRequirementObjectiveObjectiveEffectEffect

CauseCauseCauseCause

AndAnd



The Thinking Process “roadmap” —What to change?

1. Generic Cloud Process:What is the core conflictresponsible for all theUnDesirable effects(UDEs)?

Requirement

Cloud’sObjective

Requirement Pre-Requisite

Pre-Requisite

CoreConflictCloud

2. Current Reality Tree:Is the core conflictresponsible for all theUnDesirable effects(UDEs)?

UDEUDE

UDEUDEUDEUDE

UDEUDE

UDEUDE

Cloud’sObjective

System



Getting agreement on the problem —Symptoms, Root Causes and a Core Conflict

� An undesirable effect (an UDE) isusually a symptom - a resulting effectof some set of causes

� Most UDEs have a conflict or dilemmaassociated with them. Taken together,they often have much in common -the “generic conflict” of the system

� Current Reality Tree (CRT)

� Bonds of cause and effect

� Connects all major undesirableeffects and the core conflict.

� Underlying the problematic system isusually the “generic” or “coreconflict” that perpetuates itsexistence, and therefore the existenceof the full set of UDEs.

� And assumptions underlie thedilemma.

UDEUDE

UDEUDEUDEUDE

UDEUDE

UDEUDE

DilemmaDilemma

PressurePressure

Objective

NeedNeed

Generic Conflict / Current Reality TreeUsing available knowledge, these thinking process

enables a person to pin-point the core conflict at the rootof many undesirable effects.

AssumptionAssumption







The Thinking Process “roadmap” —To what to change to?

DEDE

DEDE

Obj.

DEDE

SOSO

DEDE

DEDE

Inj.Inj.

TOTO

TOTO

4. Future Reality Tree:What injection and other tactical objectives willlead to desired effects (DEs) and StrategicObjectives (SOs) without creating new UDEs?

3. Evaporating Cloud:What assumptionsare we going tochallenge?

Requirement

Assumption-> Injection

Cloud’sObjective

RequirementPre-

Requisite

Pre-Requisite



Developing a direction for a solution —Why hasn’t the core problem been solved?

� The core problem is often readilyrecognized and admitted onceverbalized.

� A systemic conflict.

� To solve the core conflict, define itprecisely:

� Clearly state the desired objective -the opposite of the core problem

� Highlight the two necessaryconditions

� Verbalize the resulting conflict

� It is necessary to overcome the tendencyto look for a compromise - if there werean acceptable compromise, theorganization would have found it a longtime ago.

� Raise and scrutinize assumptions “underthe arrows” to find an approach to“evaporate” the conflict

Evaporating (Conflict) CloudThe thinking process that enables a person to preciselypresent the conflict perpetuating the core problem, and

then directs the search for a solution through challengingthe assumptions underlying the conflict.

Requirement#1

Objective

Requirement#2

Prerequisite#2 (oppositeof Prereq. #1)

Prerequisite#1

An Injection thatcan break thevalidity of any

one of the arrows

ExistingTug-of-

war



Fleshing out the solution —An idea is not a solution

� Finding an injection - a breakthrough ideathat can free us from the devastating gripof the conflict - is just the first step.

� Our original intention was, and still is, theremoval of many, specific, undesirableeffects - and even go further to replacethem with desirable effects.

� Usually the original injection turns out tobe insufficient, but the process of buildingthe future reality tree leads to the missingelements - additional tactical objectivesthat are needed to reach the desiredoutcomes.

� Also carefully examine that the solutionwill not cause new, devastatingundesirable effects.

� These additional efforts complete thesolution, the set of things that should beinjected into our environment.

Future Reality TreeThe thinking process that enables a person to construct asolution which, when implemented, replaces the existingUndesirable Effects (UDEs) with Desirable Effects (DEs)

without creating devastating new ones.

DesirableEffect

DesirableEffect

DesirableEffect

DesirableEffect

DesirableEffect

DesirableEffect

StrategicObjectiveStrategicObjective

DesirableEffect

DesirableEffect

DesirableEffect

DesirableEffect

InjectionInjection

TacticalObjectiveTactical

Objective


Objective

System



What to we want instead of our symptoms?


There is difficultycommunicatingthe vision of the

change

People/functionsprefer to focus ongetting their ownproblems fixed,

rather thansupporting the

change


another’sdisruption

The target problem iswidely understood tobe important across

the system

People/functionssupport addressing the

core problem as apossible path togetting their own

symptoms dealt with

Those involved withthe problem/solutionare willing to listen toand contribute to thevision of the change



A piece of a high-level Future Reality Tree


There is difficultycommunicatingthe vision of the

change

People/functionsprefer to focus ongetting their ownproblems fixed,

rather thansupporting the

change


another’sdisruption

We develop buy-in with aprocess that is aligned with,

supported by, and included inthe process for problem solving.

We develop buy-in with aprocess that is aligned with,

supported by, and included inthe process for problem solving.

The target problem iswidely understood tobe important across

the system

People/functionssupport addressing the

core problem as apossible path togetting their own

symptoms dealt with

Those involved withthe problem/solutionare willing to listen toand contribute to thevision of the change

Most symptoms thatpeople care about can

be quantitatively orqualitatively valued

The process provides amethod for developing

and communicatingbreakthroughs

A possible “wayout” of the problemspace is seen by thetarget collaborators

The process distills a rangeof symptoms suffered byneeded collaborators to a

common cause that is easyto communicate



Do you ever hear “Yes, but . . .” when you’remaking a proposal?

� How might one react to short-sighted sniping at theproposal that you’ve worked so hard on?

� Have you ever seen a question about a proposaltrigger a defensive or dismissive reaction?

� Resistance is in the eye of the proposer. Maybe thereservation has merit, and if addressed, can actuallystrengthen the solution.

� Maybe understanding the cause-and-effectsassociated with the reservation can help . . .



Communicating concerns for collaboration —Use “yes, buts” to strengthen the solution

� It's not uncommon for youraudience to raise reservationsthat you have not seen yourself.

� The key is to avoid the typicaldefensive posture, and acceptthese new reservations asadditional thing to addressbefore you can have a trulysuccessful change.

� Accept, clarify, and clearlydefine the logic behind "yes,buts." - Add new tacticalobjectives to trim them.

� Makes your solution stronger.

� Also instills ownership in somewho would have been otherwiseconcerned about your change.

Negative Branch ReservationThe thinking process that enables a person to

communicate a concern that a particular actionwill lead to an unforeseen negative consequence .

UnDesirableEffect

UnDesirableEffect

DesirableEffect

DesirableEffect

DesirableEffect

DesirableEffect

TrimmingTO

TrimmingTO


Objective



The Thinking Process “roadmap” —How to cause the change to happen?

Action

Action

IOIO

Action

TOTO

6. Transition Tree:What actions have to be takento effectively implement theIntermediate and tacticalobjective(s)?


Objective

IOIO

IOIOIOIO IOIO

IOIO

Obst. Obst.

Obst.

Obst.

Obst.

Obst.


Objective

5. Prerequisite Tree:What currently prevents theimplementation of thetactical objectives?



Planning to make it happen —Overcoming obstacles

� It is usually necessary to break theimplementation task into smallerincrements.

� Use the obstacles to identify anintermediate objective that will besufficient to overcome eachcorresponding obstacle.

� To complete this step theintermediate objectives need to besequenced; which one is first, whichones can be accomplished inparallel, etc. The connections areprovided by the fact that any timedependency is due to the need toovercome an obstacle.

� The power of the prerequisite treestems from the fact that it doesn'tignore the obstacles, on thecontrary, they are used as the mainvehicle for this entire step.

Prerequisite TreeBy relying on everybody’s “expertise” at pointing out

obstacles, this thinking process enables dissection of theimplementation task into an array of interrelated, well-

defined, intermediate objectives (IOs).


Objective

IOIOIOIO IOIO

IOIO

Obstacle Obstacle

Obstacle

Obstacle

Obstacle

Obstacle


Objective

IOIO



The devil is sometimes in the details —A “results-oriented” action plan

� Some intermediate and tactical objectives areeasy, some require detailed action plans.

� In determining the needed actions attentionshould not be on what we plan to do, but onwhat we want to accomplish.

� The "backbone" of the transition tree is thedescription of the gradually evolvingchange we envision will occur in reality.

� The "ribs" are the actions needed to causethat change until the objectives are met.

� This method forces us to carefully examinewhich actions are really needed and if they aresufficient to guarantee the required change.

� It also helps to communicate the “whys” — therationales behind the needed actions andinvites alternative approaches.

Transition TreeThe thinking process used to construct a

detailed action plan.

Action Need Rationale

AdditionalReality


AdditionalReality

IOIO

IOIO


TOTO



A set of obstacles to change . . .The Six Layers of Resistance

Layer 1 - “We don’t agree onthe problem”

Layer 2 - “There’s nothing wecan do about the problem”

Layer 3 - “That idea won’tsolve the whole problem”

Layer 4 - “Yes, but...”

Layer 5 - “We can’t do itbecause...”

Layer 6 - “Unverbalized fear”



The TOC TP provides a coherent process toboth derive a solution and achieve buy-in

What to change?Generic Cloud Process

Current Reality Tree

To what to change to?Evaporating CloudFuture Reality Tree

Negative Branch Reservations

How to causethe change?

Prerequisite TreeTransition Tree

Six LayersInformed Leadership

Layer 1 - Agreementon the problem

Layer 2 - DirectionLayer 3 - DetailsLayer 4 - “Yes, but…”

Layer 5 - Dealing withobstaclesLayer 6 - Unverbalizedfear



Questions?

Frank Patrick908-874-8664

[email protected]://www.focusedperformance.com

Focused Performance Management Consulting & Training



AppendicesAppendices

� The “Jonah Program” - Learning the Thinking Processes

by applying them to a real problem

� More about the Six Layers of Resistance



The Jonah ProgramThe Jonah Program is for individuals and management teams whowant to accelerate the improvement process in their area ofresponsibility or in a subject matter of primary interest to them.

The combination of the participants’ intuition and common sense andthe mastery of the TOC Thinking Processes (TP) provided by theJonah Program results in a detailed action plan to apply to yourcurrent environment as well as the skills to apply it to other subjectsencountered in the future.

The Jonah Program is available both in scheduled sessions open todiverse participants as well as in dedicated sessions for managementteams from specific organizations.

In addition to the Jonah Program, exposure to key diagnosis andplanning tools of the Thinking Processes are also available to anorganization’s management team in a facilitated process for strategicalignment of an organizations resources and tactics.



Resistance — Layer 1“We don’t agree on the problem”

� Different players have differentperspectives and are impacted bydifferent symptoms.

� Views are colored by the symptomsthat impact us the most.

� We’ve attacked symptomsindividually, but either they keepcoming back, or the system as awhole has not seen significantimprovement because the coreproblems hadn’t been identified oraddressed.

� We need to build a common senseof the system as a whole and ofhow the symptoms are linked toeach other and to a true core cause-- the real problem.



Resistance — Layer 2“There’s nothing we can do about it”

� Typically, we feel powerless to actwhen the demands on us are inconflict…… when we’re caught in a tug-of-war… when we’re on the horns of a dilemma… when we’re stuck between a rock and a hard place

� It’s out of our control, something wemust live with and continue dealingwith by addressing symptoms.

� We don’t even have a direction for asolution.



Resistance — Layer 3“That idea won’t address the whole problem”

� Sometimes when presented witha proposed solution or change,the relationship between theproposal and the desired resultsis not clear.

� The changees can't quite see thefull strategy and don't reallybelieve that you can get whereyou want to go by taking aparticular action.

� Can the future reality bedescribed in terms of how theproposed solution turns aroundthe original symptoms (theproblems felt by the individualparticipants) into new desiredeffects?



Resistance — Layer 4“Yes, but...”

� Little yes, big but . . .

� Resistor sees some negativecircumstance that can come aboutand fights the change.

� Need to be genuinely open andresponsive to concerns raised byothers through the design andpresentation of the proposed change.



Resistance — Layer 5“We can’t do it because...”

� Implementing the tacticalobjectives of a proposedstrategy/solution is not a trivialtask—at least one of them isoften a breakthrough, adeparture from the currentlyprevailing tradition.

� Resistance often takes the formof identifying obstacles that arein the way of implementation.

� Too many obstacles

� Some are beyond our currentcapabilities.

� “That’ll happen when pigs fly”Too many obstacles

We are blocked by

We don’t know

More obstacles

We don’t have

We can’t until

We need



Resistance — Layer 6“Unverbalized Fear”

� A special case obstacle, sufficientlyimportant to deserve its own layer

� Uninvolved with construction andcommunication to this point

� Intimately involved

� Directly responsible

� Other people

� Leadership - Supported by coherentcommunication of a valid solution -Repeat Layers 1-5

� Lip service - Inaction is oftensupported by additional conflictsand reservations



For more information, contact:

Francis S. “Frank” PatrickFocused Performance601 Route 206, Suite 26-451Hillsborough, NJ 08844

Voice: (908) 874-8664Email: [email protected]: www.focusedperformance.com

A Certified Associate of the A.Y.Goldratt Institute

taking advantage of using resistance to change · francis s. patrick, focused performance ... one...

Documents