What is your plausible theory of organizational change?

I’ve had many conversations with folks frustrated by their inability to make their organizational vision real. My question is, “Tell me how this will go. What is your plausible theory of organizational change?”

“Well,” they’ll respond, “we should be doing X, Y, and Z.”

“Okay,” I answer. “What’s preventing us from doing that?”

“Charlie’s just being stubborn.”

“Assume for the sake of argument that you’ve changed Charlie’s mind. What happens next?”

That’s usually where things break down. It’s easy to let interpersonal conflict get in the way of seeing the project through.

You’re not going to be able to snap your fingers and bring your vision into being. Instead, you need to imagine a clear sequence of events to get you from A to B.

Something like this: “First, I need to convince Charlie that this is the right approach. Once she agrees, the two of us will need to meet with Steve and Marlene. They’ll have objections X, Y, and Z. Assuming we can address their concerns, we’ll then have to explain the set of management changes we’re making to the broader team. The first phase will be realigning management responsibilities immediately. Then we’ll slowly transition the team members’ work as we hire in the replacement team. Hiring will take anywhere from six to twelve months, so the transition will be slow and steady. Once the new team is fully built, we’ll rebrand the old team. That will mark the end of the process.”

That answer has the shape of a Plausible Theory of Organizational Change. It also provides much more clarity about the assumptions being made, and many more entry points to offer questions about potential pitfalls. As the interlocutor, just keeping asking “Then what will happen?” and “What happens if this step fails?”