MARYLEBONE — This year is a big year of change. In technology, in the world economy, the world of sport, even in the way all our countries are run.  There are elections in America, France, India…

What is more significant in a country than a change of government?

And that’s what is promised in India, Malaysia, Taiwan, Serbia,  Kuwait, El Salvador, The Gambia, Armenia, Algeria, Madagascar, Libya, Mongolia, Mexico, Cameroon, Kenya, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Belarus, Ukraine, Ghana, Angola, Bhutan, Guinea, Lesotho, Zimbabwe and Togo.

New presidents in Yemen, Senegal, Mali, Russia, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Albania, France, Kenya, Turkey, the United States of America, Venezuela, Sierra Leone, Egypt, Kosovo and Zimbabwe.  Yes, Zimbabwe.

We know that the United States presidential election of 2012 is to be held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. It will be the 57th presidential election.  And it will get a lot of attention.

But how about the world’s largest democracy?

Yes.  That’s India.  How about that one?

Or the big red splotch above?  Russia.

That’s important too.

There are other changes coming too.  Some, we seem to know for sure:

• Gold prices will keep going up.  And hit $2,000 and ounce in 2012, they say.
• The Internet is going to change.  A new IP address protocol will mean that companies may start building two sites for a doubled up Internet — the old one, and the new one.
• We’ll all be talking about faster, slimmer smart phones and The Cloud.  If you don’t know about either, now is the time to do some research.
• Plus many more things you may want to share?

This time next year things will be very different.

I promise.

Businesses will fail.  Some will be dominant that you haven’t even heard of.  Yours will merge, divest, make a 90 degree turn, or implement similar significant changes.

So, what are you doing about it?

Well it is a topic that is quite dear to our hearts at Able and How.  We are launching our Able and How Change Index this year.  And our change management work the world over continues at a pace.

We will be keeping an eye on business, political and social trends this year.  And keeping you up to date with the Able and How Change List (look for it soon in our News section).

Change is good.

Get into it with us.

/df

P.S. And, by the way, NASA assures us that the world is not going to end.  After many years of fielding wild calls, they were forced to put up this website.

But is there really a difference between engagement and enablement? Is anyone out there using ‘enablement’ and if so, how do you implement it alongside engagement?

Do we really need to re-badge or re-brand our communication activities?  Shouldn’t we really just focus on whether there’s been a change in behaviour and that there have been good outcomes for the business?

Or maybe this is too simplistic….

SOUTH WEST LONDON — They say it’s broken.  But I am not convinced it ever really worked.  The company cascade is like the Lost City of Atlantis… or the missing Beach Boys album.  Many people think it’s out there, but disappointment is the most likely outcome.

Here’s how the theory goes:
• You start at the top with a message.
• You give it to a few people.
• They give it to a few people.
• And soon enough the whole business has heard.

Not only have they heard, but they’ve received a compelling, first-hand account of something important.

It can’t fail.  And what a compelling idea.  So simple, so… unlikely to deliver the results you are seeking.

The problem with cascades is that, in spite of some great theory and massive stores of ‘best practice’, they rarely do what people want them to do.

There are two problems: Expectations and implementation.

The expectations for cascades tend to assume that a message will make it through the business.  And that the message will arrive in one piece.  And that people will know what to do with it.  And — perhaps most wildly optimistic of all — that it will change people’s behaviour.

Those expectations are not bad things.  It would be great to have any system that could do that.  But they are simply unrealistic.

The same often happens with the implementation.  We tend to believe that a compelling bit of prose, or an arresting headline will ensure that a message arrives at its intended location.  An unfortunately that’s unrealistic too.  Cascades tend to focus on reporting facts, to avoid misinterpretation.  And facts, unfortunately, are not what drive people to change their behaviour.  Behaviour is driven by understanding and appreciation of information.

To get that you need to explain information, provide context and ensure understanding.  Few cascades can do that.

It’s a shame really.  Because an employee cascade is a very enticing prospect. 

Unfortunately what we want the cascade to do it simply more than it can.

/df

PICCADILLY — I’ve been scanning the ‘famous birthdays today’ section of the paper for a few weeks.  Looking at the ages of those who make the list.  And — maybe it’s just me — but one decade seems to be noticeably absent.

Mine.

I didn’t want to turn 40.  But that was 5 years ago, so you think I’d be used to it by now.

Maybe I can’t handle change.

Why are so few people my age recognisable?  Those who do make the paper seem to have ‘former’ in front of their profession (footballer, tennis player) or should have ‘former’ in front (pop star, child actor).  While those who have achieved anything through a more traditional path (study, start work, get promoted) are significantly older.

What has happened to those of us who:

• are old enough to think Serena Williams is disgraceful, but McEnroe is cool
• used to be lazy boys but now act more like picky old men
• have enough pride to tell the gym instructor “I used to be in good shape” and expect to be taken seriously
• find Nirvana’s music derivative
• consider “a good year” one in which everyone got a Christmas present AND the tax bill got paid

Ah.  Maybe that’s it. This is the pause between ambition and arrogance.  The grind.

Five more years.

/df

Over the years we have worked on some exciting and challenging change programmes and look forward to many more years of success.

Thank you to everyone who made this possible.

More about our birthday here.

LONDON — I am still a bit disturbed by an interview I read while on holiday. I have no idea why, while off the grid for a fortnight, I managed to read Lucy Kellaway’s interview with Roland Rudd. But I did.

Have a quick read of it and then come back.

Let me start by saying that I have no agenda with either. Lucy Kellaway will never report on my business.  I have seen her speak once, but never met her.  Rudd is in a parallel business to mine, and although I have met him once, I will never be invited to dinner at his, and for many reasons out companies are guaranteed never to work together.

There is no doubt in my mind that Public Relations (PR) is a dark art.  To many it seems like a job that isn’t really a job.  Even if the PRCA Training manual just landed on my desk and has 55 pages of courses.  Many people feel that PR people sell influence and that influence is hard to measure.

Again, I don’t want to argue that point.  What I am interested in is the way in which Mr Rudd is fairly ruthlessly dispatched.  He’s been “making a handsome living” advising CEOs.  It’s all about people “having their egos tickled”.

It’s not a wholly abusive article.  But it’s not exactly like other profiles in the FT either.  It’s gossipy, dismissive and not particularly fun in the process.  There is something about it that is quite dark.

And I wonder if the uncomfortable relationship between journalists and business has something to do with it?  Why is it for example that these two people in the story, who started their careers together, can have had such different lives as a result?

What I wonder is would a film producer, or a Royal Academician, or a computer company owner have received the same treatment…?

/df

Kotter argued that at both a philosophical and practical level, the hierarchy opposes change. ‘It strives to eliminate anomaly, standardise processes, solve short term problems, and achieve stopwatch efficiency within its current mode of operating.’ By holding up these principles, Kotter believes that the hierarchical organisation can often ignore new opportunities for transformation which may be considered disruptive.

In Kotter’s view, the successful organisation of the future will have two structures: ‘a hierarchy, and a more teaming, egalitarian, and adaptive Network.’ He describes this network as ‘a system of teams with representatives from all divisions and all levels, who leave formal titles at the door to participate in a decidedly anti-hierarchical forum.’

Able and How’s clients are experienced in leading change and understand the importance of investing in change management. Developing networks is a key part of this and we’re currently helping a number of organisations build their own. But developing a network is easier said than done. It requires the commitment, time and influence of busy individuals. And at a minimum, the implicit trust and support of senior leadership to allow those individuals to identify and respond to change in a way that traditional hierarchies might not recognise.

Have a read of the article and let us know your thoughts.

Able and How is well aware of the risks inherent in a merger. We understand the complex changes that need to happen. And we understand the need for getting these right the first time. Read our case study where we provided extensive consulting support in the change of control process that spanned 15 countries in Africa.

For more information, feel free to get in touch with us at info@ableandhow.com.

Is your organisation telling itself “we need to get better at change”?

Many successful organisations are handling big changes – restructures, cost cutting and efficiency drives, or expansions into new markets and territories.

All too often, the answer seems to lie in finding or training highly skilled change and transformation leaders to deliver the change. But is that really enough? Even the most experienced and talented executives and teams will struggle to lead if the organisation itself cannot create the right environment for change to take place.

The CHANGE INDEX assesses your organisation’s environment and its capability to change. Building on academic research, the consultancy Able and How, in conjunction with Cass Business School, has developed a unique diagnostic tool designed to gather evidence of change capability in any business.

The Change Index provides quantitative data along 8 change dimensions. These show change leaders and executives the areas where an organisation has inherent strengths, as well as areas that need development.

Armed with this information, transformation managers and executive teams don’t have to second-guess how to improve the organisation’s change efforts.  The conversation can move away from broad statements such as ‘we need to get better at change’, towards action based on insight.

To find out more about the Change Index please contact us on info@ableandhow.com.