“Do we really have to do all five shifts at once?” Please comment!

In my blog post, “The Death—and Reinvention—of Management”, I presented a synthesis of a whole host of recent management books (including mine: The Leader's Guide to Radical Management) and suggested that the reinvention of management involves five simultaneous shifts in terms of the firm’s goal (a shift from inside-out to outside-in), the role of managers (a shift from controller to enabler), the mode of coordination (from bureaucracy to dynamic linking),  the values being practiced (a shift from value to values) and communications (a shift from command to conversation). (By the way, thanks for all the great comments: really wonderful!)

One reader wrote to me along the following lines:

Most traditional companies are going to find the challenge of doing all five shifts simultaneously formidable. Sure, that’s the ideal way to do it. But do you think there are any steps along the path to achieving all five, like doing a few together, moving on to the next?  Your article makes it sound binary—all or nothing. Are there some interim steps to get to all?

In chapter 11 of my new book, I give examples of companies doing all five shifts at once. Most of them started on a small scale and then let the success spread. There was one case, Salesforce.com, where the firm does appear to have succeeded by doing it across the board, all at once. That's the exception. In most cases, the firms start small, get some experience, and then let it spread.

So if those firms can succeed, why not everyone else?

Is it really so difficult? What the shifts entail is pretty much how people act naturally before they start getting infected by the virus of traditional management as transmitted by business schools, textbooks, management consultants and all the firms currently doing that. Here’s what the shifts involve:

"People do best what they do for themselves in the service of delighting others. When they are in charge of their own behavior, they take responsibility for it. When they are able to work on something worthwhile with others who enjoy doing the same thing, the group tends to get better. By working in short cycles, everyone can see the impact of what is being done. When people are open about what is going on, problems get solved. Innovation occurs. Clients are surprised to find that even their unexpressed desires are being met. Work becomes, as Noel Coward suggested, more fun than fun." (from chapter 12 of The Leader's Guide to Radical Management )

Is that really so difficult? My hunch is that it's not really as hard as it might seem at first glance.

Doing the five shifts at once is like getting rid of some bad habits, like smoking. Fifty years ago, some people were making a lot of money out of making and selling cigarettes, but eventually we as a society decided that it wasn't a good idea, and now we live in a largely smoke-free environment; in fact, looking back, we find it hard to imagine how we put up with all that smoke, fifty years ago, but we did it. We broke the habit. So it is with the changes needed in management. It’s like getting back to the way we act naturally before we fell into bad habits. It's hard to make the change because we have been living with the habits for so long and we have even become addicted to the habits, and some people make a lot of money out of continuing the bad habits, but we've got it break the habits, because they’re unhealthy for the organization, for the worker, for the customer, for the manager and for society.

In fact, one reader (Dave Duggal) has suggested in a fascinating comment posted in the discussion of my article (Thanks, Dave!) that the five shifts are really just one shift—from scientific management to emergence. In philosophical terms, I think that’s correct. But in practical terms, I am not sure people would know what to do if I said, “You’ve got to shift from scientific management to emergence!” Or as the article itself suggests at the end, "a shift from a focus on things to a focus on people".

So if that was all the article said (i.e. one big shift), the inevitable question would be: what does that mean? So I’ve broken it down into the five shifts involved. In practice, to implement those five shifts, most people will need even more guidance. That’s why my new book spells out more than seventy practices that are needed to support the five big shifts. So “one big shift” is too general to be useful, while “more than seventy practices” are too detailed for people to comprehend what I am talking about. “Five big shifts” is an attempt to present something that people can get their minds around and understand what is involved, without getting lost in all the details of actually implementing it.

In any event, I believe that implementing the five shifts at once is what has to happen. I don't see any other way. To my knowledge, when organizations do just one or two of the shifts, it can have some short-run success, but then the change is undermined by the other elements which aren't aligned with the different way of doing things.

For instance:

Can you really get the energy of self-organizing teams if you continue to communicate through commands and instructions? Can you really delight clients with bureaucracy? Can you really expect self-organizing teams to be productive if they are not focused on what customers want? Can you make any of this happen on a consistent and scalable basis without dynamic linking? Can you really delight clients if the organization is obsessed with the value of making money? The five shifts fit together as a self-reinforcing package of changes.

Even if I were to issue waivers ("As a special favor, Steve Denning is hereby giving you a waiver so that you only have to do two or three of the needed shifts, and in your case that will be ok.") would it help? Obviously, it doesn't matter what I say. It's a matter of what works. I don’t believe that partial implementation can work on a sustained basis.

Am I right? Let’s open the floor for discussion. Am I being too dogmatic and binary here, saying it’s “all or nothing”? Or is there a short cut, or set of interim steps that would ease the journey? Let’s hear from you!

Comments

[RichardHMerrick]

Hi Steve

I suggest it starts with the individual. If the message is understood, then I think we will start where we choose to start, and where we can make most impact. We can get to the other aspects as we make progress.
I think authentic action - doing what we decide that leverages our passion and addresses the needs of others we wish to address; , rather than that which others dictate - is at the heart of radical management. A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Lao Tzu I think.

[Steve Denning]

Richard,

That's a very elegant way of framing the issue. Love it! It captures the thought that this is a phase change: from doing what others dictate to doing what leverages the passion of yourself and others. And yes, it's a journey, as I say in chapter 11 of my book.

Is the journey a thousand miles? I tend to think of it as an infinite journey--a journey that is under way the moment you decide to make that phase change and that never ends, because one never finally arrives. One is always learning and innovating, always becoming something fresh. Thanks for the idea sparker!

Steve

[Steve Denning]

On an earlier post, Bryan Murphy had an interesting and related insight: "Are these [five shifts] interdependent in the same way an organism is not an organism unless it functions as a complete whole?"

[andy radka]

I agree with the idea that alignment of the 5 shifts is vital for success. I would argue however on reflection that there is perhaps another shift?! The neuro science research taking place is shifting understanding and providing many clues to how best to change behaviour for example - see Managing with the Brain in Mind by David Rock. This research seems to reinforce and complement the Reinvention message.

[Steve Denning]

Andy,

Thanks for the reference to David Rock's book. As I stress in my new book, this is about a different way of thinking, speaking and acting in the workplace--a kind of phase change for the brain and how we think about work.

So for practical purposes, we have to talk about five shifts, and seven principles, and seventy practices, if we are to understand what's involved. But in the end, it really comes down to one transition: thinking differently.

Steve

[Dave Duggal]

Thanks for the plug! :)

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with your notion that the five shifts provide an operational lens to comprehend and act on the big conceptual shift to emergence.

On the implementation side, the saying 'you can't cross a chasm with small steps' comes to mind.

Reinventing management requires a leap of faith. They (management and staff) need to be believers - they need to see the current problem and seek responsiveness as an enterprise value for sustainable competitiveness.

As you noted in the prior post, partial implementation, without embracing systemic change, will fail.

[Steve Denning]

Dave

Great points. Thanks for reminding me about "you can't cross a chasm with small steps" That's it exactly!

Steve

[John Segalla]

Great reading, and like the breaking down of the steps to frame the whole re-focus of thinking management has to undergo. I am comparing the 5 steps as Steve has written to the 5 S of lean management. There is to my way of thinking a practical staged way to implement lean into a company, but as we all know, its really a management top down focus which is the most difficult to enbed and change the style and behaviour of management. In all the lean implementations I have been involved in, it the management that is the hardest to convert, the staff are way ahead of the game, and this intrigues me. Steve your steps plus details will surly be exactly what is needed to practically and deliberatly re focus the management team. I look forward to more comments on the dual implementation startegy of 5 S and Steve's 5 steps in tandum.

[John Parboosingh]

This approach to management oractices has been developing over a few years. This is a nice and eloquent description. One knowledge-intensive "industry" that it has not impacted, as yet, is health care and more precisely relationships between doctor and patient and between care givers working together. I have tried to "translate" your sentences for this audience. Coming from an outsider such as yourself, Stephen, and an article directly applying to health care would be much appreciated.

[Steve Denning]

John,

Thanks for the comment. I have already translated the radical management approach to the education sector (http://bit.ly/gQZoG1).

To do the same for health is high on my to-do list. Will get to it shortly. Stay tuned!

Steve

[uggs outlet online]

Look These Up
uggs outlet online http://www.nluggs-outlet.com