The Art of Change - Time for a Change of Heart?

A few things have come together recently that I thought I would capture and comment on in case the resonate with the reader.

As a precursor I have been involved in change for over 25 years, most of it involved in what we would now be described a "structured change". I started in the days before PRINCE, let alone PRINCE2! It is not that we made it up as we went along, indeed a Canadian Bank I worked for had a huge manual on change and project management that was used heavily, but more that we built upon personal experience and that of others and were able to make the response totally appropriate to the need.

Over the years I have been involved in many initiatives and run a corporate programme office for almost four years, but in recent times have felt increasingly uncomfortable with the way my "profession" is going. Now I feel I can put my finger on that discomfort and that is that in our drive for success we are losing touch with the art of change, an element I am sure has been crtitical to many if not most major project successes. By "art" or maybe "craft" I mean those undefinable elements (insights, perpsective, experience) that a project manager has over an above anything described in a modern day structured methodology.

Certainly we need tools and skills, but ask anyone and you will find that a project plan alone, no matter how good, is rarely enough to bring success. That said success without a plan is rare to, but that plan does not need to be a 1,000 line MSProject plan, sometimes a 6 row Powerpoint slide will works.

I disagree with the APM's drive to gain a Royal Charter for project management. To my mind it will let "qualification" trump experience, open the way for increased litigation against project managers for failed projects and thus drive standards down with much more of a tick-box, cover your a*se approach to planning and managing projects. My fear is that this will drive standards down to the lowest common denominator (as long as it protects against litigation) and fail to inspire exceptional performance.

In the same vein a change forum recently posted a poll in which it asked respondants to vote about whether Change Management is a skill, a profession or both; no mention of there being a art or craft about it. I have posted on that site and interestingly had no response.

Most recently I had a mail offering for me to take the Keirsey Temperament Sorter Personality Assessment. I did this, having forgotten that I did it about a year ago. When I got the results back it turns out I am classified as an Artisan(!). Why is this interesting, well as a physicist by training and having taking the Meyers Briggs test a number of times I have always come out ENTJ or ENTP, which are Rationale types in Keirsey.

So do I need to reconcile this or not? And if so how?

Not ducking the issue, but I am not sure I do need to reconcile it. Instead maybe I can draw some observations. It may be that I am being perverse in that I was more rational and structured when that was less prevalent, but still needed. Now I am more "arty" in a world where rationals abound and you can't move a project forward without bumping into some document to be prepared, some report to submit, some governance meeting to attend or budget repport to review. This suggests to me that at least in my eyes we have passed the tipping point, the point o optimum balance.

It is also a timely reminder that what I can really bring to the table is that experience, that insight and, I hope, judgement about situations and people. The mechanistic/engineering elements of change can be done by those so much better trained and suited that I am - I will just make it all work.

I will leave with the signature line I have added to my emails as I think it sums it up:

"Mangement is about doing things right, leadership is about doing the right things!