In the changes of the world the shapes of lands and of seas have been broken and remade; rivers have not kept their courses, neither have mountains remained steadfast; and to Cuiviénen there is no returning.
J.R.R. Tolkien - The Silmarillion
Tolkien built some of the richest, most detailed worlds ever spun into existence. He did this through his love of languages, and his keen observations about what it means to be human. And one of his most profound insights was that with all change comes loss.
In a transformation, loss is sometimes very clear - loss of a job, or a change in role, title, or position.
Often that loss is more subtle, and difficult to see.
Loss of the informal status that comes with your position in an org.
Loss of that sense of mastery when the change involves reskilling.
Loss of purpose when the context, culture, vision, or mission change.
Let’s talk about loss, and how two different transformation efforts handled it.
A tale of two transformations
iZotope - a small audio engineering company
After taking funding for the first time in the company’s history, iZotope knew we needed to scale - and change dramatically. We the executive team) had huge goals…
1000% increase in revenue
Launching a new line of products in hardware
> 300% increase in staff - all over the course of a few years
We did the visioning work, planned in 3 epochs over 15 years and shared with the entire company as our Big Hairy Audacious Goal (BHAG).
We heard the concerns, and heard the sense of loss before we started any implementation, while we could still course correct.
And most importantly, we involved a large cross section of the company in both design and implementation.
The biggest change we made was to adopt SAFe. We knew that taking on a new, heavyweight process framework and applying it to our ~60 person company was a huge risk, and we wanted to do it right.
There was still loss, and anxiety, but there was also deep appreciation for the care and thoughtfulness with which choices were made. We engaged all parts of the organization in design, implementation, and continuous feedback and improvement. And that made all the difference.
Now contrast with another organization here the transformation was run very differently.
Design was created by an external party
Implementation directed by leadership
Feedback and improvements were left as local (team-level) concerns, and systemic issues were not addressed.
Let’s see how that went.
A larger insurer I used to know…
At around the same time, a large insurance company embarked on their agile transformation.
They had a multi-million dollar playbook commissioned from a top consulting firm.
That playbook was nearly identical to the one we used (informally) at iZotope.
The folks leading that transformation were smart, talented and dedicated - at least as qualified as iZotope’s team. But the story of that transformation was very different.
Design and operationalization were both fully baked before change was officially announced.
People didn’t have the opportunity to impact model design - and had little influence over implementation.
Executive leadership was visibly impatient to just GET ON WITH IT. Form the teams. Learn the new ways of working. Adjust as you go, but GO GO GO. Leadership focused on expected gains, minimizing and discouraging any talk of what was lost.
And what were the losses that folks were adjusting to?
Hundreds of people let go
Teams radically realigned
Over a thousand people had new managers
Completely new job families were created (Product Owner, Scrum Master)
Employee Net Promoter Score (eNPS) plummeted. Double digit drops on most teams - one went from +35 to -90.
Some of the best leaders left entirely, citing failures in change management - thus impoverishing the system.
And the culture and resilience of the organization was damaged, with echoes that reverberated.
How is this any different?
I understand now what the answer to the question should have been.
Nearly a decade later I canvased over 100 stakeholders to get a sense of potential problems and opportunities for a Product Operating Model.
One of the most astute executives looked at our plan and said, “this all looks fine, but I saw this before, when we did our agile transformation, and that was a disaster - how is this any different?”
I understand now what the answer to the question should have been. I would have said there are three things we will do.
“Involve every level of the organization, early and often, through design, implementation, and feedback. Support teams’ autonomy to make necessary adjustments in their areas. And keep Change Catalyst teams engaged to drive systemic improvements.”
These principles are the basis for these patterns and anti-patterns in change management.
Next week I’ll share those patterns and anti-patterns in Part II - have a good weekend everyone!