Book Review on the Science of Successful Organizational Change

 

Book Review: The Science of Successful Organizational Change by Paul Gibbons

Winston Churchill said that every man makes mistakes, but it is the successful man who  learns from his mistakes. My bet is that Paul Gibbons, the author of The Science of Successful Organizational Change, would agree. Paul Gibbons who founded his own consulting firm has appeared in the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times, to name a few. He comes at the generic change management topic with a little “c” instead of a capital “C” and not from a project manager or program manager point of view. He was a quant derivatives trader who had worked for Price Waterhouse Coopers in their “Strategy, Innovation and Change” group and as his bio indicates, he helped them develop methodologies (like we need more) in change management, innovation and transformation.  

As Gibbons debunks neuroscience of program leadership, but does not truly provide a logical framework for this belief. He instead believes that every person can be a change agent, and a successful one, if they hue to the following strategy: think about the risks of the decision and change, think about the economics of the situation, and behavior of the individuals, circumstances and environment. He puts forth several novel ideas which while logical and commonsensical are designed to make one re-engineer a project plan. He mentions that an individual should reverse-engineer the requirements and project plan. Take the completed project plan and list the circumstances where the project could fail. In other words, force the project plan, project objective to fail. What could go wrong? Start with a blank piece of paper on a white board and collaborate with the stakeholders to understand what could go wrong. Risk rank these factors. This is more than generating the run-of the mill risk log. This is using the risk log to see how project success can be enhanced. Make the leader more accountable for decisions. His theory is that we are all change agents on a project, but it is the successful leader who performs change leadership on a global scale for the programs. Projects do not fail for the same reason, but he identifies an acronym “SOCKS” to be able to categorize these failures. This taxonomy can help identify unexpected costs, shortfalls or other analytical factors such as limited capital budgeting which will affect project success. This is more than a failed acronym or metaphor. It is a way of life to make an effort to lead unsuccessful projects to success. SOCKS – “S”, stands for “Shortfalls”, “O” for cost overruns, “C” for “unexpected consequences”,  “K” for “killed programs and “S” for “unsustainable project results.”  He believes that every project should undergo a SOCKS review. This is more than a review of a risk log. It is a scientific and intuitive way of fleshing out more risks or identifying unexpected tasks to drive a stalled project to success.  I agree with his methodology.

Another idea that he hopes to teach to the reader is that the project manager is a change agent at least 80% of the time, the rest is leadership and people management. This is a mindset which sometimes is easier said than done. It becomes a people problem and not a technical problem, why projects fail. The author mentions that change management is looked at as a cost to the business instead of a revenue generator. He doesn’t look at change management as an engineer using scientific or software tools to move code from test to production. This is too mundane. He looks at change management as the approach to review undervalued projects or failing projects at the enterprise and determine what can be done to save them through SOCKS or understanding the motivations of the people assigned to the project. Not to discount them, but to challenge them to success. Another words, as the project management textbooks have generally said, it is the soft skills which can ensure success, not the hard or technical skills. The challenge is that a project management neophyte is not exposed to this philosophy in school or in the study toward certification. Changing habits is about having a big goal to get you motivated. I agree with him that education is seriously lacking in the field of change leadership and the people skills needed to ensure success.

Paul does highlight that several Fortune 500 firms, make change as part of their mission statement, and use this mission statement to motivate employees to “knock down” barriers and succeed. He does mention that more science and analytics should be done to ensure accountability of the leader too. He believes that HR should work with Senior Management to identify the general traits that a person needs to succeed in the specific position that he or she is interviewing for, and that these factors will differ by company. This is a novel approach to identify what about meshing the person’s skills with the enterprise will help the person succeed.

In the end of the book, it is the belief that people can ensure success of organizational change or ensure that the organizational change will fail. And in the end, does this mean that the students of organizational behavior and psychology make the most optimal program managers and leaders instead of ones who major in accounting or finance or computer science? I wonder.