In my last three posts I’ve focused on the way we handle conflicts at work, and especially on the way conflicts at work can be productive. Based on those posts, here are 7 strategies that can help facilitate conflict mastery at work.

#1 Have A Plan
Like any project, having a plan for reaching your outcomes is key in facilitating and achieving conflict mastery. Define reasons for why this is an outcome you want for your team and/or organization. When the motivation is in place, create your plan. Ask important questions. How far are you willing to go? When are conflicts becoming destructive? Why are you going to keep disagreements constructive? When should you take steps to change conflict behavior? At what point is it getting too intense?

#2 Define A Mutual Outcome
When starting up a project, meeting, negotiation, etc, be sure to state common outcome at first. Common, or mutual outcome means one that everyone partaking in the endeavor have been a part of setting. That way one can always remind one another of the higher goal in the process if things take a destructive turn. Also, by having mutual focus point, everyone is working with the same end in mind the whole time. This focus from everyone can help make it easier to work together.

#2 Create A Physical Space For Conflicts
Have a room designated for constructive conflicts. Similar to the idea of using different thinking hats, being in a room specified for constructive conflict can help team members or meeting participants adopt the right mindset. With time a conflict mastery approach can be automatically conditioned in such a setting.

#3 Intelligent Team Composition
Said differently, put the people that need to be on the team on the team. Smart conflict management with a goal in conflict mastery have no room, or need, for allergies and safe-teaming in the team composition process. In other words, if someone comes to you and asks specifically to not be put on a team with a certain other person, get to the bottom of it and move on. Losing out on great solutions and possibilities simply because people don’t want to sit down and work things out isn’t a good solution.

#4 Create Real Teams
If possible, make arrangements to have compositions of real teams when teamwork is involved. Real teams, or real groups, is a term coined by Hackman (1987) referring to teams where all members bring unique competence to the table. Besides saving resources by not having unnecessary people on the team, real teams foster trust among the team members because they all bring their own skills to the project, and are dependent on the other team members at the same time.

#5 Define Roles For Conflict Situations
Share responsibilities to ensure that the constructive conflict processes work as planned. Divide important roles to people in the team/meeting. Who will take charge and break in when the situation seems to turn destructive? Who will play the devil’s advocate and prevent group think, as well as making sure all questions and issues have been raised. Who will make sure that there is progress? What are the boundaries for the project manager?

#6 Choose A Neutral Seating Arrangement
It may seem like trivial point to make, but by making sure all participants are seated in a way that puts everyone on an equal basis (i.e. by using a round or even sided table), no one is put in an immediate “boss position”. That way equal participation in the discussion is encouraged. This can be especially important when brainstorming.

#7 Express Your Understanding Of Situations, Statements And Actions
As Stephen Covey says, “seek first to understand, then to be understood”. Ask questions regarding what is said, and make sure to use the first person when you do this. As I understand this…, have I understood you correctly if what you mean is…, I experienced that remark as if you were trying to… is this correct, or have have I mistaken you? By focusing on the first person form you avoid putting words in someone else’s mouth. Also, you are the only one who can know how you feel, and therefore other participants in a conflict situation will have to take your word for it.

Hope you find some of these strategies useful.

Got additional ideas? Put them in comments and let people know.

Related posts:

• Productive Conflict At Work – Constructive Conflicts, Part 1
• Productive Conflict At Work, Part 2 – LinkedIn Responses
• Productive Conflict At Work, Part 3 – Thesis Results & Reflection

References:
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior (pp. 315-342). London: Prentice-Hall.

Thesis Scope

The area of study for the thesis came as a result of interest in the subject, and was fueled by findings in the Healthy Change Processes project at NTNU showing that an openness to constructive conflicts seems to be an important factor when leveraging organizational change.
My focus was on how teams approach conflict situations, with a goal in identifying whether constructive conflicts are actively used, as well as identifying how teams manage to work with conflict productively when they are in disagreement. The teams that were focused on were from the area of consulting and advertising.

Findings From The Study

“We don’t have conflicts”

This is one line that came up in many interviews. This could be for the simple fact that having conflicts at work may feel as a taboo for many businesses. Challenges are fine, and companies love to take them on and solve them, but conflicts don’t exist. The reason for this answer, however, and this may be a Norwegian thing, is that the word conflict is negatively charged. The idea that conflicts can be constructive didn’t seem to come natural for the people that were interviewed. When asked how they would define “constructive conflicts” on the other hand, almost everyone gave a similar explanation: A situation where people are in disagreement, but where they are focused on the outcome of the project, and therefore don’t resort to personal attacks against the other team members. However, there were other views as well, such as the following answer from one person, “Constructive conflict… well, to begin with that sounds like a contradiction. I probably make a distinction between discussions and disagreements and conflicts”.

In essence, the people I interviewed saw conflict as something very different from any form of collaboration. Something worse, wrong, and definitely not constructive.

Conflict Management Approaches In Consulting Teams

One of the most interesting sides to the study was the difference in approach from the consulting teams and the advertising teams. The consulting teams were far more likely to choose what I’ve called “choosing your battles” and “quick-fixing” when there was a potential for a conflict situation. In choosing ones battles I got the impression that whether or not you engaged yourself in a conflict depended on whether there was the chance that your way would be the preferred strategy. It became a question of whether it was worth the argument or not (in ones personal opinion). Inherent in this approach is also a certain amount of disclaiming ones responsibility. What if raising your point of view would have resulted in a better solution? What would that mean in the eyes of your customers?

Quick-fixing a situation relates to a strategy where upper management is called in to solve the situation. Though necessary in some instances, I got the feeling that this was an all to easy solution for “getting rid of the trouble maker”. What if that “trouble maker” was the element that would have led to the best possible result on your project? In other instances of quick-fixing team members would also resort to strategies where they either dropped out (mentally), or took control of the project and did it all by themselves, leaving the rest of the team with insignificant tasks.

The Value Of Diverse Compentence In Advertising Teams

Interestingly, teams working in the advertising industry had a very different approach to teamwork. In the consulting teams they had the team structure in order to share the work load, though most team members could do all the of the work. In the advertising industry the common response was “we have to work in teams. It’s the only way”, as well as statements like “without my team doing their tasks, it’s impossible for me to do mine properly. I’m absolutely dependent on the team”. The simple reason for this difference is that the work areas in the advertising industry are so diverse that no one team member is able to properly do all tasks. In other words, they have to work together.

The strategies I found to be employed by the advertising teams I’ve Facilitating Ideas, and Killing Your Darlings. The first relates to the process of getting all the ideas on the table to make sure the best ones would be up for discussion. As one person said “everything has to get out, right. If you think of something that might be too stupid, at least you get it out of your head and it no longer blocks other ideas”. Another very important reason for this facilitating of ideas is that one thought, good or Also, in the advertising teams the ability to let go of your own ideas, even if you’d gotten attached to them, was a clear strategy. You have to be able to kill your darlings. With the amount of ideas coming up during brainstorming sessions, the majority are bound to go nowhere. This mindset in the advertising teams seemed to help them achieve what
constructive conflicts, even though this term was unknown to most of the people I talked to. It’s simply their way of working.

The Danger of Allergies And Safe-Teaming

Earlier I mentioned how many of the team members I talked stated that they really didn’t encounter conflicts. For the most part this came from the consulting teams. Based on this study, I found two reasons that might explain this. I call these allergies and safe-teaming. The latter refers the process of always teaming up with the same “safe” people, or having a team coordinator that always puts the the same people on a team. Sort of like a winning team. As explained by one person “You always know what you’re going get, but then again, you never get any surprises”. The chance that a conflict, productive or not, will occur, is minimal.

Allergies refers to what happens when team members are in conflict, and don’t know how to deal with the situation. What I found was that these situations often lead to an “instant allergy” toward the other person. The result is that the two are rarely put on a team together again. I was told that in many instances people will go the their managers and ask specifically to not be put on a team with a person they have developed an allergy against.

Conflict Management Or Conflict Mastery?

Looking back at the results of my thesis, I believe there’s a difference between conflict management and conflict mastery. I see conflict management as the process of creating the best possible environment for conflicts to occur, as well as solving conflict situations that have become destructive. Conflict mastery, on the other hand, I see as the ability to take any conflict situation and either keep it constructive, or take it from a destructive to a constructive path. I also believe that conflict mastery is achieved through proper conflict management, though this means there needs to be a focus on training and willingness to take the time needed to get there. Not taking the time for this seems to easily lead to “allergic” situations where organizations lose flexibility unnecessarily, as well as the need edge to find new solutions be safe-teaming, rather than exploring new “team territory”.

Got some thoughts on the matter? Share them with me.

Related Posts

• Productive Conflict At Work – Constructive Conflicts, Part 1
• Productive Conflict At Work, Part 2 – LinkedIn Responses
• 7 Strategies For Facilitating Conflict Mastery

Since last weeks post on productive conflict at work, the linkedin answers to whether conflict at work can be productive have gone up from 118 to 121. With the quick overview of some of the theoretical positions on conflict presented in part 1, this post will focus on the point of view from the many linkedin professionals that have provided answers based on their own experiences and knowledgde. I thought the quote above from one of the responses captured their point of view well.

On The Definitions Of Conflict

How conflict is defined from a theoretical point of view is one thing, how people actually define it may be another. When is it appropriate to call a conflict productive? was one question that was raised. Since conflict is considered a negatively charged word for many people, keeping this in mind can be a smart tactic when dealing with conflicts. Other people may not share your point of view.

Another two interesting approaches are to distinguish between conflict and criticism, and, as one respondent said, there is no such thing as productive conflict.

Conflict as Beneficial

From the responses it is very clear that the majority finds that conflict can be productive at work. A large amount of the respondents even feel that it is essential to have conflicts for the organization to stay ahead of, or on par, with its competitors.

 The main benefits of conflicts mentioned are:

• Increased creativity and innovation
• Better openness at work, and better ability to listen without prejudice
• Increasing maturity as a result of every conflict that is solved constructively

Conflicts are seen as learning processes that are necessary for organizational growth and development. In line with research in the field, this compares to the idea of constructive (C-type, positive or task) conflict found when disagreement stays on target (i.e. the work tasks)

Conflict Management Strategies

Seeing that the majority see conflicts as assets, how do you manage to create and keep them constructive? I found the following interesting:

• Take time-outs in order to regain composure
• Keep the emotions out of the discussion
• Cultivate the conflicts. Make people better at handling them.

The first two might easily come off as givens when working productively with conflicts. The third point, in my opinion, acknowledges the essence of conflict management strategies. By moving beyond the fear of conflicts, and seeing it as a learning experience rather than an obstacle, a solution oriented perspective on conflict is chosen.

I like the following quote, and I think it encapsulates the perspective on conflict as a productive asset well. “Conflict is beautiful at work. It means that the ideal has yet to be achieved”

Work With A Mutual Outcome In Mind

Having a mutual outcome was mentioned several times as necessary for work conflicts to have the chance at being productive. In the light of theory, this also makes sense. When conflicts turn destructive, focus is one of the first factors to fall. Rather than targeting the assignment with the aim of a solution, the guns are pointed towards your colleagues. Without a strong conviction from the other parties of the conflict, the road to the downward spiral is short. Remember, as one of the LinkedIn professionals said it, “It’s not personal, just business”.

On a related note, conflict (re)solution approaches mentioned were to
:

• Take the conflict off-site when a situation is sliding toward the destructive path
• Have a plan: Stick to the facts (do not make assumptions), state how something made you feel (stick to your own experiences and emotions)
• Listen (seek to understand). Realize what the purpose is (to reach an outstanding solution to a situation)

And as one respondent stated: “Treat people with dignity”.

The Knowledge Of A Professional Network

Along with a focus on the productive side of conflicts in work situations, I hope this post shows you how you can use the questions & answers feature on LinkedIn as a source of first hand knowledge from professionals. If you’re not already taking advantage of this side of LinkedIn, I suggest you take some time to check it out.

Related post

• Productive Conflict At Work – Constructive Conflicts, Part 1
• Productive Conflict At Work, Part 3 – Thesis Results & Reflection
• 7 Strategies For Facilitating Conflict Mastery

Definitions of Conflict

Before looking at the productive side of conflict, let’s see how conflict has been defined in reserach. Thomas has the following difinition:  A conflict is “the process that begins when one party perceives that the other has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that he or she cares about” (Thomas, 1983, p.653). Though maybe a bit on the academic side, this definition is a starting point, at it dives straight into the notion that conflict is a negative state. This is also more or less the way conflict is viewed today.

Alternative Definitions Of Conflict

Research on conflict has been going on for many years, but around the mid nineties a focus on conflicts as constructive started to become a point of interest. A couple of the main players in this work are Karen Jehn and Allan C. Amason. Based on their, and other’s research, the following divisions of conflict can be made:

Constructive Conflict

• Also known as cognitive conflict (C-type conflict), positive conflict and task conflict.
• The conflict is centered on the idea or case at hand that you are working to solve.
• It stays constructive because whatever the conflicting parties feel toward each other, the focus stays on the task, not the people.
• Because the conflict is focused on tasks, people in conflict on one project have no problem working together on other projects.

Destructive Conflict

• Also known as affective conflict (A-type conflict), negative conflict, and relationship conflict.
• Conflict as it is thought of in most people’s minds is destructive conflict.
• Conflicting participants focus their “ammunition” against people and personality, not task.
• They see opponents rather than team players and colleagues.

Another form of conflict defined by Jehn & Mannix (2001) is process conflict which relates to “an awareness of controversies about aspects of how task accomplishment will proceed” (p. 239). In light of the difference between constructive and destructive conflict, process conflict is concerned with the understanding of where the conflict is going, and how certain areas in the work tasks may present a stronger “charge” of tension than others.

Benefits of Constructive Conflicts In Organizations

When constructive conflict is promoted it is because it is seen as having several important benefits such as:

• Improving the decisions made because multiple arguments are heard and taken into consideration.
• Fostering a more creative and innovative environment. Where two people disagree, a decision is often a result of both of their arguments, leading the process in a new and better direction.
• Having an environment where opposition is allowed, even encouraged, can facilitate a better communication and interaction, as well as a healthy working environment.

In illustrating the different outcomes of conflict behavior, Thomas’ model provides an easy to grasp overview of the different conflict behaviors and outcomes, ranging from win-win, win-lose, compromise, shying away from conflict, and collaboration. Collaboration is where we find constructive conflicts. The goal for all parties is to reach a solution that is as close as possible to a win for everyone, and it is achieved when people are both focused on working together for a solution (cooperative), while at the same time staying assertive to their thoughts on the task at hand (assertive). Below is an adaptation of Thomas’ model on conflict behavior

Why Constructive Conflicts Are Difficult To Master

The conflict process often starts out as a constructive process, but because organizations often lack routines for conflict management, they easily fall into the destructive path. Rather than focusing on the task and reaching as a good a result as possible, it becomes a blame game between the conflicting parties. It may even come to a point where the actual reason the conflict occurred in the first place is forgotten. What becomes the ultimate goal is for participants is to “win the conflict”.

 Sitting now with a destructive conflict on their hands, the chances are that much greater for bridges being burnt between colleagues, and that rumors start about one or more people because of “how difficult they are”. When management has to step in because the participants are not able to solve the situation themselves, they are forced to take sides. Though not the intention from management, one party is likely to feel stepped on either way.

In the following parts of this series on constructive conflict, I’ll take a deeper look into the points of view offered by people in the LinkedIn network and the results from my thesis on constructive conflict management in teams.

Feel free to add your own points of view and ideas for follow-up reading.

Related posts

• Productive Conflict At Work, Part 2 – LinkedIn Responses
• Productive Conflict At Work, Part 3 – Thesis Results & Reflection
• 7 Strategies For Facilitating Conflict Mastery

During my graduate studies at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), I got to be a part of an exciting project titled Healthy Change Processes at the Department of Psychology. I was involved with the project in the initial data collection phase and data collection at a later stage as well.

As addressed in an earlier post, the actual percentage of successful change is incredibly small. One study related to organizational fusions found that as much as 75-83% failed to reach their goals related to organizational change. Take into account the amount of money that is spent on change initiatives, and we’re looking at a large bill.

Over ambitious goals and a lack of clarity and communication may be part of the reason for why such a small number of change projects succeed, along with the resistance to change from employees who fear for their jobs and are insecure about the future.

The Healthy Change Processes Project

Based on the numbers mentioned above, and similar findings, the Healthy Change Processes Project, a collaboration between NTNU, SINTEF, The Norwegian Labor Inspection Authority (NLI) and led by professor Per Øystein Saksvik, took the following aims:

• Identify factors leading to successful organizational change
• Create and provide guidelines for implementing change processes
• Understand what characterizes successful change

Collection of data for the project was done on several occasions as the project evolved, and was based around interviews with leaders and employees in public and private sector businesses.

Important Factors for Successful Change

The findings suggests that in order to increase the possibility of successful and healthy change there should be a focus on:

• Awareness of local norms
• Awareness of diversity
• Manager availability
• Constructive conflicts
• Role clarification

Some immediate problems can be taken care of at the start of change processes by understanding local norms (specific sides to the organizational culture). When aware of these, both managers and consultants will have the advantage of presenting ideas that don’t collide head on with the inner workings of a business. It can be first step to avoid resistance to change from most (and hopefully all) of the people involved.

Understanding diversity is important because the official version what the organization looks like and the reactions that have come forth in regards to the change projects aren’t necessarily the actual state of things. Differences of opinion can, like local norms, be a highly influencing factor on the change process to come.

Though it’s no newsflash, having available leaders and managers help facilitate the change process. Available leaders and managers are visible during the change process. They facilitate the process by using existing knowledge and competence in the employees, and provide a point of stability in a situation that is often experienced as unstable. Having access to a person of influence that understands the change process provides security. This especially important for middle managers to be aware of, as research show that they tend to “hide” during processes like this.

By allowing conflicts to appear, they can become constructive rather than destructive. Resistance to change is almost guaranteed during organizational change. By anticipating resistance and welcoming it, leaders and managers also have a better chance at understanding the various concerns employees have. Rather than blocking them out of the change process, they get to participate and get a sense of ownership to the end result.

Making sure everyone who’s involved in the change process have a clear picture of what their roles will be helps lower job stress in times of change, and can potentially lower the instance of conflicts during the process.

A Quick Summary

The short version of the findings from the Healthy Change Processes project is that we need an even stronger emphasis on communication. All five areas that were identified as specifically important involve communication and understanding between management and employees. This is important during in-house change project, and possibly even more so when outside consultants are brought onboard (which is common). Outside perspectives are often necessary to help organizations think outside the box, and armed with the a) knowledge of local norms, b) an understanding of the diversity of the organization, c) leaders and managers that do not shy away from tough situations, d) but face difficult questions and situations as well has help e) provide clear roles, change initiatives should have a better chance for success.

Feel free to add your own experiences from change processes, and how the above have influenced (or not influenced) the process.

If you have questions regarding the project, you can contact professor Per Øystein Saksvik at NTNU for more information.

More info
P. Ø. Saksvik and colleagues: Developing Criteria for Healthy Organizational Change
P. Ø. Saksvik and colleagues: Sunn Endring i Organisasjoner (in Norwegian, but has good references for further reading)
P. Ø. Saksvik: Prerequisites for Organizational Change
From the NLI: Kartlegging av omstillingsprosesser (in Norwegian)

Judging by job ads, a great number of organizations are looking for leaders. Not a big surprise, but it’s still something that’s important to look into. We have a financial situation that has led to massive layoffs, and the organizations are still looking for the same people as they were before the crisis struck.

Who are they looking for? Energetic people with a knack at finding solutions, that can be part of a team, as well as having a strong independent drive and work ethic, someone who thrives in a working environment where no two days are alike, where change is taken head on and embraced. Last, but not least, they are proactive. In my ears, this sounds like a search for a leader (and by leader I mean someone who can bring leadership to an organization, though not necessarily through his or her position).

What lens are you looking through?

Now, healthy leadership is important in any organization, but I also wonder if leaders are what organizations actually want. I ask this question because I had the pleasure of reading Tribes by Seth Godin recently, and his portrayal of leadership struck a chord.

Leaders are people that ask questions, look for new ways to reach goals and absolutely have the ability and drive to think for themselves. The question the status quo, and are willing to make changes to the current situation. That’s why I’m wondering whether some of the ad descriptions seen in the job ads today are partly a result of the image organizations want to show the public. As much as routine tasks, predictability and small change can be part of an organizations existence, it just sounds better with proactive, dynamic and excellent.

What happens when management lead leaders?

Another way to phrase the question could be: are the organizations’ environments conducive to the leaders they believe they want? Every organization (or even most groups) needs both leaders and followers. Of course, a good leader will know when he or she should take the role of either leader or follower, and as long as they remain followers, management may be more than happy. But what happens when they decide it’s time to change the status quo? Some scenarios could be:

1. The organization is fortunate to have people on board that can take full advantage of their leadership knowledge, and help lead it toward a successful outcome in a time of need.
2. Conflict ensues as top management and the “leader employees” butt heads over organizational strategies, resulting in them being removed (the easy solution that gets rid of the annoying factor).
3. Leadership leaves town. Being highly skilled and knowledgeable, and not being listened, or possible used as cheap labor, the prospect of finding somewhere new to hone their skills will probably seem enticing (and there will be others to hire them).

In short, leaders (and everyone else for that matter) need possibilities to develop themselves, grow, and have impact. I’m not talking about an egocentric way here, but just simply the need to make things better (regardless of recognition).

Does Mindset Influence?

I am currently reading Mindset – The New Psychology of Success by Carol Dweck at the moment of writing this post, and I am wondering if her thoughts on mindset should be a part of this discussion as well. In short, Dweck, based on her research, argues that there are two different mindsets that control much of our behavior.

• The Fixed-mindset argues that talent and abilities are inborn and remain stable over time. A person with a fixed mindset is prone to think that actually having to work for something is a sign of weakness. It signals that the person is not capable. If you have the talent for a task, it should always be a walk in the park.
• The Growth-mindset has a focus on learning and acquiring abilities, and sees these as improvable with practice and effort. A person with a growth-mindset will appreciate a challenge, and rather than seeing mistake as failure and walk away, he or she will see it as a learning experience and look for better approaches and try harder the next time.

Dweck exemplifies the fixed-mindset in businesses that make it a point to only hire the absolute top students, the best of the best, the ones with the natural talents (if you’ve seen some of the recruitment pages of the major consultant companies, this may sound familiar).

Of course this doesn’t mean that these businesses are comprised of fixed-mindset people, but maybe it could be that since some of these major players look for the proactive, independent, highly analytical, creative, resilient team players, other companies decide that this must be the winning formula. However, could it also be that you need an environment like the one you have at big consultant firms for these people to “work”. On the other hand, the turnover rate for the same companies are quite high, so… I’m open for input on this one, but I thought was an interesting angle worth adding.

In the end I suppose the keywords for this post might be organizational recruitment and job analysis as much as leadership.

Just a few thoughts on the subject. Let me know what you think. I’m open for different points of view.

The percentage of actual successful change processes is small. Some make no difference whatsoever, some lead to small change, and a select few are successful. This isn’t news, and still organizations spend millions on change projects using the same consultants and the same methods. Top-Down controlled short-term thinking.

A Gap in Perception

While studying at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology I was part of a project called Healthy Change Processes. Though based in Norway, I believe the findings are at least partly applicable in change initiatives outside our Northern borders as well. The project focused on identifying key factors related to successful organizational change.

The most important finding in my opinion was a strong need for everyone to understand the intention of the change initiative. Why? Because whether we talked to large organizations or small businesses, we found a lack of communication between top management and the rest of the employees. CEOs would explain how everyone was excited about the changes that were being made and what the organization would look like, knowing that we would interview some of their employees afterwards. The employees would then tell us how the changes felt forced upon them, and that they did not fully understand why they were moving in the direction they were.

I truly believe that the CEOs really believed their own perception of the change processes were shared, despite being totally off the mark.

Weak Analysis and a Lack of Awareness

My perception is that the reaction of employees in many cases is forgotten, or taken too lightly during the planning and analysis stage of the process. Upper management has found a solution they believe in, and conflicting views are seen as less important than they really are, or possibly disregarded in full.

With a lack of awareness to the to the voices in opposition, the organization dives head first into the change processes, and as more and more money is spent on the initiative, it gets harder and harder to change directions, take a step or two back, or stop the process altogether.

Applying the Quick-Fix

Quick-Fixing consists of the idea that organizational change can be done really fast, and at a low cost. This is especially prevalent in Western cultures, where organizations want to think ahead six months rather than, say, two years. The problem with short-term change is they are often not thought through. Seth Godin’s post on Bear-Shaving has some examples I think fit the bill.

Some of the largest consulting companies boast of turning organizations around in as little as four months. Though possible on paper, what about the people actually being affected by the change processes. Add to that a lack of understanding regarding the intention of the change (many consultant companies also make it a point to work with top management only, leaving the rest of the organization possibly without a voice), and the process just got that much tougher.

Though long-term thinking at the onset seems more expensive it can pay off. People differ greatly from one another, and their reaction to working differently, taking on new roles, losing colleagues and/or fearing for their jobs during downsizing can lead to a state of organizational fight-or-flight. So in conclusion my thoughts are that while there at times is a need for fast (and sometimes) radical change, you still need to make sure you have your people on board, and see the reasons and intentions clearly.

Want more info:
•    For an overview and info on the Healthy Change Processes project (English)
•    Sunne Omstillingsprosesser (Norwegian description, but with a selection of references)