Change takes many forms.

However, one thing is pretty universal: the kinds of change that "just happen" are seldom the kinds of change you want. Happenstance change tends to come about when processes break down and unexpected results start to happen. Scientists call this entropy: the slow and eventual loss of order and organization toward a simpler (less controlled) chaotic state. Try telling your board of directors that your strategy is to follow an "entropic change course"... but only do so if you are independently wealthy and don't need your job.
50This is why change agents are so valuable. Organizations need someone who can come in and bring

change... whether it's elevating the level of organization and sophistication (the opposite of entropy) or changing to a different (sic better) course of approximately the same complexity and sophistication. Organizations that stay static for too long, begin to die. Or the market begins to render them irrelevant. A couple thoughts about change agents. They tend to be an uncommon breed... here are some things I've learned are true about them. 1. Change agents are never satisfied doing the same thing over and over. Repetition is the enemy of a change agent. Put someone in a situation like that and they will begin to tinker automatically. Not because they know of a better way, but because they are probably bored. There is a skill set for optimizing and fine tuning operations, but it is not a change agent skill set. What would challenge an Operations Excellence person all day long, just might put a change agent to sleep. 2. Change agents know how to lead change efforts. I remember the first time I was put in charge of an organizational change team. I was petrified and completely insecure. I had no idea how to start (even though I had several thoughts about how I wanted it all to finish). I didn't know how to organize it, lead it, communicate it, recruit for it.... That was a skill I had to learn. So does every change agent. Over time, they will gravitate to these kinds of challenges and develop a competence about them. Now leading a change team isn't daunting to me at all. In fact, I find these kinds of teams some of the most interesting to lead. 3. Change agents learn to filter the interesting from the important. I had someone in my office today tell me that he liked the way I was able to get to the heart of matters. This is an important skill for a change agent. It's unfortunate if a person is trying to drive change, but is focused entirely upon peripheral items. No matter how hard they work, they won't get what they are looking for until they can get focused on the levers that matter. Whether that means finding the right person, or the right data or the right idea. 4. Change agents must be patient. Change seldom happens on schedule. Many times, the change agent needs to bide his or her time until the circumstances align. The real key here is to do as much as you can to be ready for that Most often creating change is as much about creating an environment where change can happen effectively as is about crafting the change itself. So this means waiting and being patient. Which is hard. Being a Change Agent can be very fun - if that's what you are cut out for. If it isn't I'll bet it's a hard, scary venture. Every organization needs one though. Large scale or small scale, it's someone you might want to look around to find and get on your side.
Change is the biggest constant in todays business world. Even charities and educational organizations are finding that they need to constantly innovate not only to compete for donation dollars, clients, and members, but to remain relevant to the changing social landscape around them as well. But people hate change. Right? The management literature is loaded with tales of corporate innovation gone awry product launches flubbed, reorganizations that caused productivity to plummet and workers to flee en masses, hideously stupid morale programs that mandated chipperness and received resignations in return, and so on. When

workers at any organization get together, they swap stories of corporate inanity, laughing at each others tales of programs too stupid to have been thought of in the first place, let alone implemented yet they were. No, the common wisdom goes, people dont want change. They want the steady footing of corporate constancy. A vast number of books have been written about how to resolve this problem: companies need change, but workers hate it. Graduate management programs dedicate countless semester-hours to coping with this conflict. Executives wring their hands over the tension between their needs and employees unwillingness.

People LOVE change

People dont hate change, they love it. Workers constantly seek promotions and new job responsibilities. They buy selfhelp books and personal development books seeking to become better at their jobs. They launch their own businesses. They change companies and jobs, they even change careers, all for the sake of breaking out of unsatisfying routines and gaining control over the conditions of their own labor. People love change, they just hate having change rammed down their throats. They hate being sold a bill of goods, and too many corporate innovations feel like a bill of goods to the workers expected to implement them.

Three principles for change people love

Kanazawa got his start as a corporate strategist at the same company where Scott Adams gave birth to Dilbert. I think its safe to say that Pacific Telesis was a company that got change wrong. Repeatedly. Much to our general amusement. Frustrated by the ham-handed and almost always unsuccessful way that change was managed there, Kanazawa sought out a different way of approaching change. In People Dont Hate Change, he lays out the three principles companies need to embrace to create real innovation that their employees will get behind:

Do more on less
Workers fear the latest new program to come across their desk because theyve learned that change means more work for them. These fears are confirmed when management invites them into the conference room or meeting hall for the inevitable pep rally and gushes about the new program and then tells them that they must do more with less. It appeals to our core values of thrift and efficiency, this idea of doing more with less. It sells us a little. But in the end doing more with less is impractical. Employees end up overtaxed by new responsibilities, frustrated by lack of resources, and resentful about all the work theyre doing with no extra compensation. Instead, Kanazawa suggests that management demonstrate clearly what the new priorities are, and what is no longer a priority.Give workers a clear sense of what they should be focusing on, and get rid of the rest. Outsource it, or better yet cut it entirely. Doing more on less means doing more work, more thinking, and more activity on less stuff. It means focusing employees efforts where they count, instead of splitting their attention twenty different ways.

Theres no such thing as buy-in

Companies know the value of buy-in when pushing radical new programs. Buy-in is that sense among workers that they hold a stake in the success of a project, that its theirs, somehow theyve bought into the new program. Typically, companies will assign a leadership team, outside consultants, or project group in a division to design a new program. Once the plan is finalized, theyll go to the employees who will be responsible for implementing the new plan for a buy-in meeting. They sell the plan, and employees buy in. Except, they dont. They may think its a great idea, they may be enthusiastic about it, but in the end, its not their plan. Kanazawa advocates a different approach to innovation bring employees in from the start, rely on their practical experience and expertise and incorporate their ideas into the plan. Follow their lead. When workers are instrumental in creating change in their organization, there is no need for buy-in because the ideas arealready theirs.

Leadership is not about you

A year ago, I debuted at Lifehack with a post on leadership, saying that leadership wasnt about power, it was about empowering others. Kanazawa concurs, writing, Leadership impact is not about how aggressive, decisive, and visionary you are, it is about how you bring that out in others. By empowering those around them to do more, true leaders drastically increase their own leadership power their power scales with the ability of those around them. It is important for leaders to have vision, authority, and ambition, but it is more important for them to reach out to others all along the chain of command to make sure that everyone feels involved in the process of change. Leaders who dont do this, who attempt to impose their vision from the top-down, might manage to achieve something that looks like their vision, but which is hollow and empty.

Make change lovable

Ive had Kanazawas book in my to read pile for a while, and Im anxious to make time to read it. In the meantime, though,People Dont Hate Change, They Hate How Youre Trying to Change Them gives a good introduction to the approach to change that Kanazawa has developed since leaving Dilbert-land. Keeping Kanazawas principles in mind can help any organization to leverage the love that people already have for true, meaningful change instead of working against that love and forcing their employees into a reactionary, self-defensive position. And that dissolves entirely the tension between companies need for change and workers distrust of it. When you make change lovable, theres no need for hand-wringing.