The Wardman Wire

Mike Ion has written an article looking at how Mr Gordon can implement a vision. This article is not about helping Mr Gordon find a vision - it’s about what he can do with it if it happens.

Mike quotes a process of implementing change from John Kotter’s “Heart of Change”, which includes 8 steps. Quoting the full list:

Kotter argues that leading change in complex organisations is not easy and that traditional models have been based on a flawed concept of ‘vision.’ Kotter outlines the following eight stages that need to be gone through in order to ensure change takes place:

Step 1 - Increase urgency.
. Leaders use compelling visions that others can touch, see and feel, look for ways to reduce complacency and identify compelling opportunities. People start telling each other that things need changing

Step 2 - Build the guiding team.
A group powerful enough to guide a big change is formed and they start to work together well. The group consists of powerful ‘change agents’ including those who know enough about the issues facing the school, those who can do something about them and those who care enough to get the job done.

Step 3 - Get the vision right.
The guiding team develops the right vision and strategy. They develop compelling possible ‘futures’ that respond to the heart as well as the head. They link bold visions to bold strategies and find ways of involving others in the ‘visioning’ process.

icate for buy-in.
People begin to buy into the change, and this shows in their behaviour. Communications are simple, heart-felt and appeal to people’s emotions. New ‘visionary’ behaviours are modelled especially by leaders.

Step 5 - Empower action.
More people feel able to act, and do act, on the vision. Converts are rewarded and supported and are used to influence cynics. Barriers to progress are identified and gradually removed. People receive feedback which helps them to relate better to the vision.

Step 6 - Create short term wins.
Wins which touch the emotions come thick and fast. Successes speak to influential players who may not be fully engaged. Momentum builds as people try to fulfil the vision, while fewer and fewer resist change.

Step 7 - Don’t let up.
People make wave after wave of changes until the vision is fulfilled. Urgency and support are maintained. Distractions are reduced. Opportunities and resources supporting the vision are taken up.

Step 8. - Make change stick.

Mike then asks:

Can Kotter’s model work in government? Does Gordon need a vision or does he need to create a sense of urgency?

One caveat I’ll add at the start is that I’m commenting on the bare-bones outline above - so I am using a summarised interpretation of Kotter’s approach to hang my comments on.

My Assessment of the Kotter Process for Political Change

It is an interesting suggestion, but to me this process is far too “top down”. The “vision” is decided by a small group, and further groups are engaged as and when necessary to communicate and implement the “compelling” vision identified by the “guiding” team. Communication is for “buy-in”. Communications are “heart-felt”, and appeal to emotion.

Such an approach is unsuited for political life, because it is anti-democratic and treats the little people with contempt. Communication should be to help identify the vision, that can then be reviewed and made practical by the leadership.

A top down approach is only suitable in political life when real alternatives exist; it might be suitable for building one of several separate bodies in a marketplace - but is not suitable for a government.

The process almost reminds me of the “rapid change then managerial enforcement” process used for reform of some nationalised industries, for example by Ian MacGregor at British Steel. Perhaps the approach can be justified when a revolution is necessary, as in the case of British Steel above or perhaps even Labour at the start of the Blair era (not that I like the outcome particularly).

I’d suggest that the real sign of a mature and confident government is to allow individuals and communities to make their own decisions, rather than developing reams of “targets” and “KPIs”. Yes, some control and some targets are necessary - and I’d identify the Welsh decision to completely abolish school league tables rather than reforming them as an example of management that is now done in a fog - but more often than not more bureaucracy and centralised control is the wrong approach.

In my opinion “top down” is precisely the way the current government operates - perhaps it is a hangover of the need to introduce strong central domination into the policy making process within Labour in the 1990s - with a strong “Not Invented Here” syndrome. I think this is overly defensive, for example attempts from the House of Lords to mitigate bad legislation are oftem met with a reliance on “The COMMONS are the elected house; we are sovereign and must prevail” attitude rather than a willingness to recognise mistakes. This has caused huge problems in, to mention one example, legislation around detention without trial, which has turned into a continuing charade played with people’s freedom.

Other Types of Process

The recent Conservative policy-development process is interesting, where groups went out to wide consultation in order to generate a “laundry list” of proposals - and the leadership then selected proposals to make a platform. Arguably that process gives too much power to those making the selection - so that whole areas of policy, such as some of John Selwyn-Gummer’s group’s proposals on Quality of Life, can too easily be sidelined without further debate.

An example of a process that perhaps went too far the other way, and gave too much of a stranglehold to “stakeholder representation” over “the most competent people” was the pre-Blair (or perhaps pre-Kinnock) process for electing the cabinet in the Labour Party. The initial cabinet of any new Labour government consisted of those elected at the previous Party Conference. In that case, a government ends up with the people who are good at building party power-bases rather than those who are good at running the government. Not a good idea if you want an effective government.

Wrapping-up

My preference when running change programmes is to develop a provisional “where we want to go” outline (call it a “vision” if you must), and use a lot of consultation early to test and refine that idea, which then has careful

And as for change programmes with our current government, in my opinion their “besetting sin” - the basic failing that cripples many things they do - is hubris.

What do you think?

[tags]gordon brown, vision thing, managing change, john kotter, heart of change[/tags]