Hot Topics

CHANGE: PASSIVE, REACTIVE
OR PROACTIVE ADAPTATION

A Few Opening Thoughts

A crisis usually does bring about quick, visible reactions. No one has time to debate these reactions, to question their logic or long term viability, or to make plans to best implement them. Just do something to change this uncomfortable situation. As my father used to say, "Do something, even if it is wrong!" It is probably this very speed and visibility that led many of us to view reactive change as the only real change.

However, our experience at Lazarus has led us to the conclusion that organizational change is approached in three basic ways: Passive, Reactive, and Proactive, and in several hybrids of these three. It sounds fairly obvious and pretty straightforward. In reality, however, the approaches to change in organizational settings are anything but simple.

Before we talk about these three approaches and their hybrids, I would like to propose that rather than using the word "change" to describe the various movements that an organization makes, we use the word "adaptation." An organization adapts as it develops so that it can stay alive and hopefully stay healthy.

The word "change" is probably common in most of our vocabularies. We change jobs, change tires, change diapers, change doctors, change clothes, change friends, change plans, change hair colors, change channels, change planes, change our minds, change our hearts and change our attitudes.

For most of us, changing something means to stop doing, being, feeling, having or using something in exchange for doing, being, feeling, having or using something else. Sometimes this "something else" is a change for the better and sometimes it is just a change for the different. We label major life redirections like changing careers and small, everyday activities like changing our shoes with the same word. We refer to them all as change. The commonality in all these changes is that we are in control, and we make the decision to change our careers or change our shoes.

In an organization, this word has also come to be fairly common. For example, we change suppliers, change offices, change computers, change shifts, change parking spaces, change responsibilities, change managers, change co-workers, change benefits, change philosophies, change owners, change locations, and change processes. Just as in our personal lives, some of these changes are small and have relatively low impacts. Others are large and have huge impacts. Some of these changes are short lived and some are long term. Some are improvements and some are just different. And yet, they are all called change. In an organizational setting, we are not always in control of the change. While we may have input into all changes and even authority over some, we do not always get to decide if the organization changes locations, owners, or philosophies.

Clearly the word "change" is no longer the best choice to describe the movements that an organization makes to stay alive and healthy in its ecology - its total environment both internally and externally.

If we think of organizational changes as "adaptation" rather than just the exchange of one thing for another, we are probably more likely to take them seriously. The term "adaptation" reminds us that each change is (or at least should be) made to help the organization stay alive and healthy, to adapt to its situation - both internally and externally. Whether or not we are able to see how a particular adaptation will help the health and survival of our organization is quite another issue (and another LazCast!) However, adapting is necessary and decisions about who, what, when, where, how, and why to adapt are likely the most important decisions we make in our organizations and our personal lives as well.

Three Basic Approaches to Adaptation and Their Hybrids

Organizations, just like us humans, will adapt or die. Whether or not we realize it, we have been and are continuing to adapt to our surroundings. If we are healthy, we have been adapting a lot and doing so quite well. Surviving the death of a close friend or relative, for example, means adapting to the loss. Being healthy living in the South means adapting to the heat and humidity.

"To live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often," writes John Henry Newman.

I don't think it is possible to reach perfection. However, I do agree that adaptation is a fact of life. In our work with clients we often hear statements like:

• "Some things will never change."
• "Things are always changing."
• "We'll wait until it blows up to fix it."
• "Things are about the same as they were last year."
• "If it's not nailed down, it's moved."
• "I'm doing the same thing I've always done."
• "I don't do the same thing the same way twice."
• "We'll wait until we have no other choice."

Sometimes you hear all of these at the same organization!! How could all these seemingly contradictory statements be true of one organization?

We have found that most organizations do not adapt using just one of the three approaches at the exclusion of the others. Organizations use all three approaches and several combinations of the three depending on the area, people, work, or situation in question. For example, an organization may be very proactive in its adaptation of equipment or technology—planning for and installing the most current models. This same organization, however, may be very passive in its adaptation of processes—using the same work methods year after year and very reactive in its adaptation of human resource practices—getting help for an inadequate formal leader only after significant turnover has occurred.

Sometimes passive adaptation in an organization is shattered by an event that brings about reactive adaptation that is followed by renewed passive adaptation. Sometimes proactive adaptation is followed by passive adaptation once the project is over or the goal is reached. And sometimes, reactive adaptation is followed by proactive adaptation that is then followed by passive adaptation.

Organizations tend to form patterns of adaptation - some adequate for life and health and others inadequate. Each organization tends to have an approach to adaptation that is water level, that is the norm and defining part of the culture. The organization tends to seek this water level and return to it over and over, even if the level is not particularly healthy.

Adapting well does not mean choosing one approach to adaptation and using only that one.

Adapting well means using Proactive Adaptation as the normal water level in the organization and using Passive and Reactive Adaptation to navigate the periods of restful still water and the periods of unexpected, threatening rapids.

Though they are strictly interpretive and are not flawless analogies, we can think of these approaches to adaptation in the following ways:

Passive Adaptation = Evolutionary

Adaptation is barely perceptible, happening slowly over time with members of the organization investing little energy and activity to influence it in any given direction. It is usually adequate to keep the organization alive though not adequate to enable it to thrive or to weather unexpected difficulty.

Passive Adaptation does not mean that nothing is happening. It just means that adaptation is happening very slowly and with little or no influence from members of the organization. Things in the organization or the area in question just flow along like a lazy river with the members in rafts with no paddles or floating on their backs. Passive adaptation is fairly common in organizations. If it is the water level adaptation approach, the organization is likely not to survive in today's fast changing world.

Reactive Adaptation = Revolutionary

Adaptation is sudden and obvious, happening quickly with members of the organization investing lots of energy and activity to influence it and survive the interrupting event. It is adequate to keep the organization alive and to enable it to thrive for the short term.

Reactive Adaptation means that something has happened that is forcing the organization to make a very quick, unexpected adjustment or suffer unpleasant consequences. Adaptation must happen regardless of the cost. Members of the organization will rally with activity and purpose to weather the unexpected event. Things in the organization are like a raging river and members are in survival mode focussing on just the rapid that engulfs them.

Proactive Adaptation = Dynamic /Organic

Adaptation is continuous and paced, happening spontaneously and at the appropriate pace with members of the organization investing appropriate energy and activity to influence it in a given direction. It is adequate to keep the organization alive and to enable it to thrive for the short term, mid term, and long term.

Proactive Adaptation means that the organization is continually adapting as a natural part of how it lives - anticipating, planning for, and adapting to its environment. Members are knowledgeable, skilled and equipped with the resources and authority to adapt as needed and are experienced enough to handle the unexpected. Things in the organization are like a river passing through many differing terrains with the members prepared to pass through each with confidence and creativity.

Stay tuned for "Lessons in Adaptation from the Hiwassee." A short story about a short trip down the Hiwassee River and two people's learning first hand about the three approaches to adaptation. It is sure to tickle your funny bone and give you pause for reflection about the ill advised and sometimes disastrous ways most of our organizations approach and implement change efforts. You will not want to miss it!!

Questions? Comments? We would love to hear from you.
Drop us a line at info@lazarusconsulting.com .