Pigs on the Wing
Occasionally glancing up through the rain
Wondering which of the buggers to blame
And watching for pigs on the wing
Pink Floyd, Pigs on the Wing - Part I, Animals, 1977
The practice of change management, indeed we might argue all management practice, has a Newtonian view of time that is useful but not sufficient. In this view, the measure of organisational change is progress against a plan to achieve a desired end state. It is rational, it assumes the path to the desired end state is clear, and the position of the organisation in time and space can be fixed through accurate measurement.
This view is resident in our theories and models of behaviour, organisation and the means by which we influence both. Theories and models are important guides for managing change but we need to understand how these models arise, the purpose they serve; and perhaps most importantly, when they become dangerously unhelpful.
All theories and models help us by bringing order out of chaos by providing ways for us to access shared meaning and to communicate effectively. They connect and orient. For example, Chess is often a useful representation of competitive organisational strategy. It can be a valuable start point for framing our thoughts on action and reaction, or the process of sequencing actions to achieve an outcome. However, as a representation of the reality it has limitations. There are no half-moves in Chess, nor is there the option of adding an additional row to the board. In real strategy, the rules are not as fixed.
Our theories and models don’t just appear, they come from the imagination and actions of a human mind. They are shaped, developed and refined by people working together. Ultimately, individual imagination is the catalyst.
The available information is funnelled through filters of personal perception, experience and speculation. This process flattens and simplifies to provide a representation of reality. Once we have a model we can test, validate, and adapt. Facts alone, without the organising synthesis of a theory or model are isolated and contribute little to our understanding.
Our theories of behaviour, work and organisation will always be partial. The pursuit of meaning by a straight and narrow path rarely yields insight. The path of organisational change winds, varies, and on occasion, doubles back on itself.
Our organisations are bundles of layered historical accidents. The product of actions that accumulate over time. We accommodate variance and discontinuity in our experience by developing ingrained habits of practice that are a best-fit to achieve the outcomes we have set with the materials we have to hand. Our rationally developed models of change and tightly controlled project managed actions are not designed for the shape of this particular problem. This gives some weight to the often-quoted statement that 70% of change management initiatives fail. The wrong thinking and wrong tools for the wrong job.
The history of change management is replete with theories and models that have been given an existence and permanence that is divorced from reality. While originally grounded in good research these models develop into grossly over-simplified process maps that give managers a sense of false confidence that they are in control. The models become pigs on the wing. We would do just as well to look on the application of these models in wonder and follow the course they take out of idle curiosity.
The synthesising imagination that is at the source of theory development and model building needs to stay with us through implementation. The same imagination that generates our theories and models (our knowledge) should be alert to the limits of applying them. Unfortunately, it is easier to standardise, program and catalogue our experience in order to access comfort and certainty.
We need to be sceptical about the number of ‘facts’ we really know. We should be mindful of the effort and time required to reshape historical accidents and ingrained behaviours. Our thinking, methods and practices should reflect the nature of the problem rather than shoehorning the problem into the most easily accessible guidebook for change. This is the harder path. It is easier to watch pigs flying.
