GLOSSING KOTTER: OFF (AND BACK ON) THE BEATEN TRACK

Another excellent edition of HBR this month. In this post, I want to gloss what is otherwise a very fine article by renowned change expert, John Kotter. The article, "Change Faster" introduces the concept of 'dual operations' to Kotter's eight point change lexicon. In essence, Kotter argues that traditional operational command-and-control hierarchies cannot keep up with discontinuous, rapid change. Another, hierarchy-less or "non-hierarchy" (if I may put it that way) needs to generate strategic imperatives for traditional corporate bodies to follow in anticipation of evolving threats and, particularly, opportunities. I agree with Kotter, subject to one caveat: that strategy, being itself in flux, a team of dual operatives must revise, or 're-translate' existing strategy down the pipeline. More aptly, this requires dual operatives (who are recruited, Kotter notes, as a volunteer army) to represent, and re-present strategy 'down and across' the organisation. If the current strategy fails to meet, or inadequately, meets the organisation's goals in the competitive environment, the dual op group/network will need to regenerate strategy in accordance with new conditions. Here is my gloss re Kotter in point form. Yes, I'm lazy, but I think the point structure captures what I (and, extensively, Kotter) mean.. - Dual Operation Structure, but with 'retransmission belt' to translate, redesign/refine and implement discontinuous, strategic change. - Hierarchies necessary for standard, D2D Ops ('day-to-day'), but NOT SUFFICIENT. Need agile bolt-on structure. Can be team or Kotter's "network". - Need to design virtuous circle of change into ordinary operational structure (or, alternatively, to generate new initiatives) comparable to Kanban, "pull" system. - Too much change is still a bad thing. Dual operational-strategy team, drawn from various areas of the organisation, obviates this problem by test-driving ideas and methodologies. - In tune with Kotter's principle of 'acceleration', agile companies will capitalise on new ooportunities where slower, heavier organisations CAN'T or WON'T compete. - Ideal structure, in many ways, to move in on competitors' territory a la Porter's Five Forces. - Similarly, near-ideal structure to DEVELOP, MONITOR AND RETAIN HIGH-POTENTIALS IN (ULTIMATELY) DEFINING AND, IN THIS STRUCTURE, 'REFINING' STRATEGY. - I agree with Kotter that 10% selection from among the traditional ranks is sufficient to generate buy-in, to solidify ideas, to isolate potential and to complement traditional command-and-control. VISION AND 'RE-VISION': 'PUSH, STRETCH, ENGAGE'. - Dual ops should Know the Mission, thoroughly, or be capable of being brought up to speed. At the same time, it is necessary for this second, non-affiliate structure to be flexible in meeting the mission by revising strategy or D2D ops in light of emerging threats or opportunities. - In terms of membership, look for candidates who verbally and visibly WANT TO PLAY, AND PLAY HARD.. - To get the right people on the carousel, differentiate and ENGAGE, ENGAGE, ENGAGE.. - Dual ops structures, in line with Kotter's thoughts, need to drawn from across the organisation - at all levels - consistently with their ability to see "outside" their own windows. In other words, these members will constitute Kotter's "urgency" team. - Look for an individual's capacity to think freely [even free-form] and determine their capacity to energise others. - As a fluid, creative group, the dual ops team acts like a 'STELLAR SATELLITE' to drive alignment, performance and execution in anticipation of emerging trends. The group is thus TOTALLY MISSION-BASED. - Kotter mentions the eg of Paul Davidson and his urgency team's work on B2B sales. - Finally, Kotter admonishes dual op teams to 'NEVER LET UP'. They are assisting the organisation, non-traditionally, to realise a STRATEGICALLY BETTER FUTURE in harmony (not conformity) with existing D2D ops.