Is it foot-dragging, or is it really transformation?
If it takes longer than under a year, it's certainly not transformation
by Niels Pflaeging
Until a few years ago, I was adamant that profound, or substantial organizational transformation could not be achieved within less than 18 months. I considered 1 1/2 years to be an excellent and super-short time-frame to undertake paradigm-changing change work. A tough time-frame, even. I had a few excellent arguments why an organization could never overcome its system faster. Faster transformation, I contemplated, was technically impossible. Until, in 2019, I had to grudgingly accept I had been dead wrong.
I know better today. And, somewhat strangely, I have come to understand why my previous stance on transformation had been a recipe to my own failure as a “transformation consultant” – even though I had always had the best intentions, the same I have now (to bring Beta organizations to life, and help turn it into the standard codex of organizing). Thing is: Today I know that any approach to transformation that accepts using 18 months or more is way too slow for a serious organizational shift to coherent self-organization, decentralization, lean, agility or BetaCodex. Such approaches cannot actually work out and be effective.
So why are 1,5 years or 2 years of transformation too damn slow? Because that timeframe indicates a ‘linear‘ approach to change. A telling, not working approach to change. An approach based on achieving acceptance, not on getting transformation done, together, in the here and now. Any transformation initiative that would take 12 months or more will ultimately fail to transform the system, and end up throwing people, teams and organizations into systemic incoherence, disarray and stagnation. It is likely that such “transformation efforts” are actually not aimed at working on the system, but at working on people, at least after a while.
Now, please don't get me wrong: I am not saying that those who attempt overly slow organizational transformations are wrong-headed or that they have bad intentions. What I am saying is that the specific approaches to change they choose are hopelessly out of date and indeed profoundly dysfunctional. Especially since now we have better, time-boxed approaches like OpenSpace Beta at our disposal.
There is a better way
If you want to see your organization go Agile, Lean, QRM, Teal, Beyond Budgeting, BetaCodex or something of the sort, then you better pick an approach to change that’s capable of transforming a system quickly, and does not wind up in announcements, in convincing others, in foot-dragging, dabbling or hypocrisy. Your best choice for that, at this moment of time, is clearly OpenSpace Beta. The reasons for that competitive advantage are manifold:
OpenSpace Beta is fast – it only takes 90 days (or half a year, all included – see concept overview.
It is grounded in solid theory and proven approaches, including OpenSpace, the BetaCodex and Cell Structure Design.
It allows to involve everyone, right from the start, all at the same time, and to achieve engagement by “all the willing”.
It is consistently aimed at working the system – not at “working the people”.
It is a no-nonsense approach and thus requires few consultants and close to no training.
It is reliable - due to its speed, focus and reliance on a Sponsor with the right kind of authorization.
Everybody can use OpenSpace Beta, even commercially - thanks to an open source license
Transformation requires transformative methods. Conventional “change management” is unfit for the task
In OpenSpace Beta, the transformation work is done by the members or an organization themselves, in parallel to their day-to-day-business, and as it is done by the many, together, it still requires the bare minimum of external help, or consultants. It is invitation-based, not coercion-based. And it is as based on disciplined self-organization as the system you want to bring about. What's more: You can begin with what you have, at any point of time: You do not have to wait for a right moment to arrive until you get going. You can start now.
If this all sounds odd, illogical, illusory or utopian to you, then you are probably looking at the problem of profound organizational transformation the way I looked at it, five years ago. Believe me: I hear you. I get how this may look to you, because I have been there myself. Which is why I can only invite you to start doubting. I invite you to take a look at our current reality, for starters: Look at what we have achieved, after maybe six to eight decades of Organizational Development (OD), after maybe five or six decades of Lean and Beta at companies the likes of Toyota, Gore, Handelsbanken, and Southwest Airlines, after maybe two decades of Agile. If you look at current reality, we do not have too many actual transformations to show for. I firmly believe that is not because of bad intentions, but because of flawed methods of transformation.
I also believe that there are many people out there who long for organizational self-organization, decentralization, and democracy. Including business owners, executives, managers and most employees. But as long as we stick to coercive, staged, linear, steered approaches of change management, we will fail to create the conditions for actual transformation that sticks. With the advent of time-boxed, invitation-based approaches to transformation that rely on the work be done by "all the willing" within the organization itself, we finally have the chance to make self-organization ubiquitous.
We just have to pick the methods that match our intentions.
Learn more about the world’s leading approach for transforming entire organizations, fast
Learn more about the OpenSpace Beta approach, the underlying concepts, and cases of companies that have done it: You will find plenty of resources about it all on the OpenSpace Beta web page.
Get the handbook on OpenSpace Beta by Silke Hermann and Niels Pflaeging – now in its 3rd, improved edition.
