View our online change management jobs magazine now…

Too big too small, does it matter?

…such is the dilemma and contradiction of managing change.

As the pace of globalisation continues unabated across most sectors, it leaves little room in a tough commercial world for those organisations who remain undecided about their USP and competitive strength. They are effectively rabbits caught in the dazzle of headlights. The consequent outcome of their ambivalence is determined for them, not by them.

Considering the life cycle stages of organisations from inception, growth, maturity, decline and disappearance, it’s clear that ignoring this fact of life seals the destiny of organisations who fail to actively renew themselves. The winners and losers of this zero sum game are all too apparent from the news headlines.

The characteristics of those at each end of this continuum are typified at one extreme by small entrepreneurial outfits, to the other extreme of large national / global giants who seem to dominate and look unassailable.

This is not to suggest that that only David’s and Goliath’s exist. There are plentiful players in the middle ground, but will they eventually wither and die or gather momentum and become dominant globally or in their chosen niche? This apparent ‘no-mans land’ seems neither a comfortable nor sustainable place to be.

Smaller organisations tend to be regarded as fleet footed, dynamic, have fluidity, able to react quickly responsive to market changes, simple and clear decision making, from a flat or non existent hierarchy. Sounds pretty good, but being small presents its own downsides, lack of discipline and consistency from day-to-day, emotional and intuitive decisions not always grounded in deep analysis and research. Lacking real purchasing power and clout they are unable to influence events. Poor visibility, restricted market domain and no real customer loyalty are commonplace. Yet we all know of examples that buck the trend. The advent of on-line commerce certainly offers some levelling of the playing field for market entry but the fight back by established players is not to be underestimated.

So how do the giants compare? They are usually characterised by multi-national presence, multi-layered management structures, formal reporting and controls feature strongly. Highly developed processes and formalities are indeed well established and complexity abounds. Departments exist for virtually everything, with their own policies, right down to rules on procuring paper clips. Even amongst the giants, there exists a pecking order in which ‘mega’ corporations often transact sums exceeding the total wealth of some nations.

This is not meant to be a treatise on world economics, but simply an attempt to understand the canvas upon which change programmes need exist and thrive to make a real impact. Given the enormous range of organisational contexts what does this really mean for sponsors, stakeholders and project managers charged with moving things forward?

Smaller organisations are in effect the ongoing project of their founders. During the early years the proprietors themselves act as Business As Usual (BAU) owners, sponsors, key stakeholders as well as being project manager for what is their emotionally based venture. Certainly formal methodologies and sign offs are not the order of the day. Entrepreneurs, who successfully balance the competing demands of BAU and development projects in terms of time and skills, can and do succeed. This enables them to play in the bigger leagues. However upon reaching the next rung means it’s just the start of a tougher arena. There is now a whole lot more at stake and personal and organisational expectations higher than ever. As the outfit grows, the realisation of what it takes to ‘stay in the ring’ becomes vividly apparent and hence the need for deliberate strategies combined smart implementation. Change managers engaged to support such organisations face a personal dilemma of reconciling formal project approaches in a culture of, ‘just ******* do it’. They need to be geared to withstand a ‘shoot from the hip’ style sponsor / stakeholder who has no time or patience for ‘this project nonsense’. The temptation for a Project Manager to inflict methodology mayhem is to be avoided at all cost, yet he/she still deliver demonstrable added value.

At the other extreme, the mega corporations often have sizeable project communities with established standards for delivering change. Over the lifetime these organisations have developed an appetite for change and yet despite established formalities and dedicated in-house teams, still struggle to cope with implementation, i.e. the translation of strategic analysis into something tangible on the ground. One reason is that such large organisations are a complex web of organic growth, combined with mergers and additions, produces a legacy laden leviathan that finds it downright difficult to emulate upstart competitors. Undoubtedly the ‘mega corp’ has market might, but the need to trawl through the treacle of governance and bureaucracy means that ‘fleet footed’ and ‘responsive’ can no longer be regarded and key attributes. There is no denying that large organisations begat large complex change. Organisational integration programmes become the order of the day, £millions being invested in the hope of producing ROI and renewed capability it might have enjoyed in the past. Those who have assimilated deliberate and constant change into the culture early in their lifecycle have faired better than others. Those who have been laggards have reached a size that means that change can no longer be ignored and the compound effect can be a painful. Project practitioners entering such environments face the dual challenge of;

a) satisfying the organisational formalities, multiple stakeholders, complex business cases and ‘politics’

and;

b) implementing tangibly on the ground as more befits a small niche player, ensuring alignment of multiple strands in pursuit of an end game.

So what can be deduced from the dichotomies facing today’s change agent? Practitioners would do well to better recognise and adapt their project management style to the characteristics of the organisation and environment in which it operates. Clinging strictly to structured methodologies and project processes assumes a ‘one size fits all’, which is not only ill judged but also hugely naïve.