There is perhaps no better example than the UK’s National Health
Service. Established in 1946, the NHS is an enormous, government-run
institution that employs more than a million people in hundreds of units
and divisions with deeply rooted, bureaucratic, hierarchical systems.
Yet, like other organizations, the NHS has many times attempted to
improve the quality, reliability, effectiveness, and value of its
services. A recent effort spawned hundreds of initiatives. For each one,
a clinical manager—that is, a manager with a background in health care,
such as a doctor or a nurse—was responsible for implementation in his
or her workplace.
In tracking 68 of these initiatives for one year after their
inception, we discovered some striking predictors of change agents’
success. The short story is that their personal networks—their
relationships with colleagues—were critical. More specifically, we found
that:
1. Change agents who were central in the organization’s informal
network had a clear advantage, regardless of their position in the
formal hierarchy.
2. People who bridged disconnected groups and individuals were more
effective at implementing dramatic reforms, while those with cohesive
networks were better at instituting minor changes.
3. Being close to “fence-sitters,” who were ambivalent about a
change, was always beneficial. But close relationships with resisters
were a double-edged sword: Such ties helped change agents push through
minor initiatives but hindered major change attempts.
We’ve seen evidence of these phenomena at work in a variety of
organizations and industries, from law firms and consultancies to
manufacturers and software companies. These three network “secrets” can
be useful for any manager, in any position, trying to effect change in
his or her organization.
You Can’t Do It Without the Network
Formal authority is, of course, an important source of influence.
Previous research has shown how difficult it is for people at the bottom
of a typical organization chart—complete with multiple functional
groups, hierarchical levels, and prescribed reporting lines—to drive
change. But most scholars and practitioners now also recognize the
importance of the informal influence that can come from organizational
networks. The exhibit “Two Types of Workplace Relationships” shows both
types of relationships among the employees in a unit of a large company.
In any group, formal structure and informal networks coexist, each
influencing how people get their jobs done. But when it comes to change
agents, our study shows that network centrality is critical to success,
whether you’re a middle manager or a high-ranking boss.
Formal Hierarchy
Informal Network
In the formal hierarchy of one unit in a large company, Lukas holds
the most senior position, while Josh is at the bottom of the pyramid.
But, as the informal network diagram shows, many people seek Josh out
for advice, making him more central to the network than Lukas and thus
highly influential.
Read more
Consider John, one of the NHS change agents we studied. He wanted to
set up a nurse-led preoperative assessment service that would free up
time for the doctors who previously led the assessments, reduce
cancelled operations (and costs), and improve patient care. Although
John was a senior doctor, near the top of the hospital’s formal
hierarchy, he had joined the organization less than a year earlier and
was not yet well connected internally. As he started talking to other
doctors and to nurses about the change, he encountered a lot of
resistance. He was about to give up when Carol, a well-respected nurse,
offered to help. She had much less seniority than John, but many
colleagues relied on her advice about navigating hospital politics. She
knew many of the people whose support John needed, and she eventually
converted them to the change.
Another example comes from Gustaf, an equity partner at a U.S. law
firm, and Penny, his associate. Gustaf was trying to create a
client-file transfer system to ensure continuity in client service
during lawyers’ absences. But his seniority was no help in getting other
lawyers to support the initiative; they balked at the added
coordination the system required. That all changed when Penny took on
the project. Because colleagues frequently sought her out for advice and
respected her judgment, making her central to the company’s informal
network, she quickly succeeded in persuading people to adopt the new
system. She reached out to stakeholders individually, with both
substantive and personal arguments. Because they liked her and saw her
as knowledgeable and authentic, they listened to her.
It’s no shock that centrally positioned people like Carol and Penny
make successful change agents; we know that informal connections give
people access to information, knowledge, opportunities, and personal
support, and thus the ability to mobilize others. But we were surprised
in our research by how little formal authority mattered relative to
network centrality; among the middle and senior managers we studied,
high rank did not improve the odds that their changes would be adopted.
That’s not to say hierarchy isn’t important—in most organizations it is.
But our findings indicate that people at any level who wish to exert
influence as change agents should be central to the organization’s
informal network.
The Shape of Your Network Matters
Network position matters. But so does network type. In a cohesive network,
the people you are connected to are connected to one another. This can
be advantageous because social cohesion leads to high levels of trust
and support. Information and ideas are corroborated through multiple
channels, maximizing understanding, so it’s easier to coordinate the
group. And people are more likely to be consistent in their words and
deeds since they know that discrepancies will be spotted. In a bridging network,
by contrast, you are connected to people who aren’t connected to one
another. There are benefits to that, too, because you get access to
novel information and knowledge instead of hearing the same things over
and over again. You control when and how you pass information along. And
you can adapt your message for different people in the network because
they’re unlikely to talk to one another.
Informal Network Types
Cohesive Network
The people in your network are connected to one another. This
builds trust and mutual support, facilitating communication and
coordination.
Bridging Network
Your network contacts are not connected to one another.
You are the bridge between disparate individuals and groups, giving you
control over what, when, and how you communicate with them.
Read more
Which type of network is better for implementing change? The answer
is an academic’s favorite: It depends. It depends on how much the change
causes the organization to diverge from its institutional norms or
traditional ways of getting work done, and how much resistance it
generates as a result.
Consider, for instance, an NHS attempt to transfer some responsibility for patient discharge from doctors to nurses. This is a divergent change:
It violates the deeply entrenched role division that gives doctors full
authority over such decisions. In the legal profession, a divergent
change might be to use a measure other than billable hours to determine
compensation. In academia, it might involve the elimination of tenure.
Such changes require dramatic shifts in values and practices that have
been taken for granted. A nondivergent change builds on rather
than disrupts existing norms and practices. Many of the NHS initiatives
we studied were nondivergent in that they aimed to give even more power
to doctors—for example, by putting them in charge of new quality-control
systems.
A cohesive network works well when the change is not particularly
divergent. Most people in the change agent’s network will trust his or
her intentions. Those who are harder to convince will be pressured by
others in the network to cooperate and will probably give in because the
change is not too disruptive. But for more-dramatic transformations, a
bridging network works better—first, because unconnected resisters are
less likely to form a coalition; and second, because the change agent
can vary the timing and framing of messages for different contacts,
highlighting issues that speak to individuals’ needs and goals.
An executive whose informal network isn’t right for the change
initiative can appoint a “cochair” whose relationships offer a better
fit.
Consider, for instance, an NHS nurse who implemented the change in
discharge decision authority, described above, in her hospital. She
explained how her connections to managers, other nurses, and doctors
helped her tailor and time her appeals for each constituency:
“I first met with the management of the hospital to secure their
support. I insisted that nurse-led discharge would help us reduce
waiting times for patients, which was one of the key targets that the
government had set. I then focused on nurses. I wanted them to
understand how important it was to increase their voice in the hospital
and to demonstrate how they could contribute to the organizational
agenda. Once I had their full support, I turned to doctors. I expected
that they would stamp their feet and dig their heels in. To overcome
their resistance, I insisted that the new discharge process would reduce
their workload, thereby enabling them to focus on complex cases and
ensure quicker patient turnover.”
By contrast, another nurse, who led the same initiative at her
hospital, admitted that she was handicapped by her cohesive network:
Instead of supporting her, the key stakeholders she knew quickly joined
forces against the effort. She never overcame their resistance.
Comments
Post a Comment