Introduction to the Onemind® Framework

The problem

It is now recognised that all organisations have to be able to orchestrate change effectively to be competitive, to be more responsive to customers, or to even survive. Most projects fail, with those initiatives that require some change or transition management failing at the higher rate of 80%. The commercial sectors are just as poor at achieving corporate change as the public sector. Yet most of us are familiar with the rhetoric of what we need to do to achieve change. But despite this knowledge, organisations still fumble it. However, achieving successful change programmes need not be a mystery.

Most management books on organisational change focus on specific applications in specific environments without identifying the generic rules that underpin successful change. However, without those generic rules in place, an approach that works in one organisation is unlikely to work in another. One size does not fit all. Indeed, describing specific experiences is only of limited use because the manager has still to identify those generic rules and apply them to their unique situation.

Despite identifying best-practice in those left-brain activities like portfolio, programme, project and process management, people a) fail to fully appreciate the best practice, b) do not carry it out when they run their initiatives, and c) undermine or sabotage their own best efforts with contradictory behaviour. There is widespread acknowledgement that projects are doomed to failure if we do not actively engage in the right-brain activities of creativity, strategy, how we treat people, and inclusion. But despite this acknowledgement we still don’t really have clear methods of undertaking such right-brain activities. We need to move past rhetoric onto action. We have techniques and systems that significantly aid the application of these left-brain activities – particularly with respect to engaging in cooperative working across many people – but precious few techniques or systems that help us with the right-brain activities.

We need a generic approach to change that aids the marriage of the right-brain with the left, and sets the appropriate context for achieving success. If people understand why best practice is the best and how it makes achieving their objectives easier, they will a) learn best practice methods, b) apply them when they undertake change, and c) stop sabotaging their own best efforts.

The solution

With so many corporate change initiatives failing, a new approach that lifts our level of thinking is essential. With the future of our organisations being dependent on the ability to achieve intended change, the modern manager, politician or professional needs to be able to approach change in a way that makes it easier and achieves better results.

The Onemind® way to achieving successful change is based on the use of eight maxims, and invites us to radically change our perspective on how change is brought about and shows how we can contribute to achieving sustainable change more effectively. Within this new frame of reference we can better apply what we already know about managing programme and projects.

The maxims do not say what you have to believe or what your objectives should be. But they do outline what you have to do to be successful. You will only succeed to the extent that the maxims are applied. You may wish to achieve world domination or to feed the poor. But to succeed, whatever your aims, you have to apply the maxims.

However, maxims are not enough. The Onemind approach includes processes and techniques which support the application of the maxims.

The Onemind maxims are:

Maxim 1: Think differently

The problem is not the challenges we face, but the level of thinking we bring to the situation. As Einstein stated, we cannot solve problems at the same level of thinking at which we created them. This means that each of us has to be open to a new way of looking at our problem situations if we are to find the solution inherent in them; we have to be prepared to consider the possibility of a new perspective. And we need practical processes and techniques that will help us form this new perception and develop our solutions.

Maxim 1 is the solution to rigid mindsets. People often confuse rigidity of mind with a firmness of purpose. These are different attributes.

This maxim encourages you to be willing to change your perspective and underpins all the other maxims. It cautions you not to be so sure that you are right. It says you should think differently because nothing will change until you change your mind. We should consider the possibility of a new approach to change and be open to new perspectives.

The reason that most efforts at change fail is because we constantly make the mistake of thinking that the cause of things is outside of us. And whether we are willing to think differently or not is a matter of personal choice. Without that choice, however, we condemn our change efforts to follow the deeply worn tracks that have led us to failure and will lead us there again.

Maxim 2: Agree what it is you want

Maxim 2 encourages the setting of clear business objectives, using an iterative consultative process, and being faithful or loyal to them in behaviour and intention.

Previous attempts at gaining clarity over business objectives has often taken the form of a mission statement or equivalent, drafted by a few senior executives, and forced onto a compliant or indifferent workforce. This then produces general agreement about how useless mission statements are and a willingness to move on to the next management fad. Rather, Maxim 2 encourages an extended period of developing a fuller and more supported view of the business aims. This should be a comprehensive and iterative process involving talking to others, listening, adapting and persuading.

An appropriate description of the business objectives should include the new business processes to be introduced, the benefits to be realised, and the measures for those benefits. The development of this description should actively involve a wide and visible collection of representatives from every viewpoint of the organisation. The process and progress of the definition should be communicated to all staff. Importantly, the behaviour and subsequent decisions of the senior management should reflect a consistency of purpose and a genuine belief in the objectives.

Maxim 3: Understand relationships

Maxim 3 encourages the identification and development of the relationships that support or potentially block achieving change. It encourages the use of theories of change and basic psychology to actively involve people. In essence, the practice of change management is about how you respect and treat others in the workplace. It is a process of how you transcend your own and their situations to achieve improvements in the ways things are done.

It is easier and more effective to reduce the resistance to change rather than increase the pressure for it. Therefore, change management should focus on lowering the resistance to change. This can be done by adhering to the Onemind maxims.

This comes down to a question of style. Telling those affected by the change what to do may increase the resistance to change. Consulting with them about the change – while being open to being persuaded – may reduce their resistance to such an extent that they undertake the change without much more effort on your part.

Maxim 4: Value differences

For change to be effective the business objectives have to be understood. For a change to attain its full efficacy it must be expressed in a language that each recipient can understand without fear. By using people’s different thinking styles to resolve conflict, to improve communication, and to balance creativity, values, technical feasibility and procedural safety, we value others and their differences. We let go of condemnation of others.

Most of us are familiar with the brain’s left-rational and right-intuitive divide. We can also consider the divide between the top-thinking (cerebrum) and the bottom-feeling (limbic) brains. A four quadrant metaphor has been developed for our thinking preferences based on the brain’s left /right and top/bottom divides.

Each of us approaches problems and decisions using these thinking divisions in some combination of preference and avoidance. If within our communication and stakeholder involvement we neglect one of these quadrants (as we typically do), we exclude part of our audience and we miss out on their contribution. Typically, we believe that our particular combination of thinking preferences is the only way of approaching, analysing and solving our problems. By not valuing other’s thinking styles, we sow the seeds of failure. If instead we value differences, we greatly increase the resources and options to tackle our problems.

These quadrants combine to provide the rich and diverse responses that humans have to situations. The ‘personality’ of each of the quadrants relates to observable thinking and behavioural traits we see in ourselves and others. Each of the thinking preferences have distinct styles in the way that they communicate and expect others to communicate with them.

Maxim 4 asserts that for any sizeable endeavour to succeed, a ‘whole-brained’ – or better – a ‘one-mind’ approach must be adopted. That is, there should be a balance between the strategic and conceptual why, the values and relationships of who, the methodical and procedural how, and the technical and feasibility of what.

In combination, the maxims can be superimposed onto the four thinking preference quadrants as shown in figure to form the Onemind approach to change.

Maxim 5: Cooperate

For change to be effective, we need to set the roles and responsibilities of those involved, and the decision-making organisational structure to support reducing the resistance to change. In other words, we have to organise the organisation. Best practice programme and project management methodologies address this maxim, and the issues are often addressed in the design and setting up of a programme management office.

Having set the vision, the business objectives, and the way the future processes should work, organisations often obstruct success by maintaining decision-making processes and authorities that actively inhibit the very change being sought. Functional (or silo) management is a poor system for delivering change. It is widely recognised that cross-functional teams are required to implement significant change. Yet companies often employ functional structures to undertake the change. Even if we do form cross-functional teams power is kept within functional departments that control budgets, place orders, recruit, etc.

The main reasons this inevitably leads to failure is that it places the responsibility onto middle management to achieve cross-functional change without also bestowing on them the authority to dismantle redundant functional structures and control. It is seen as honourable for a functional head to compete for resources at the expense of other functions. But in a biological organism such behaviour would be called cancerous, where one part grows at the expense of viability of the whole. It cannot be maintained and the demise of the organism is assured. This is true of government departments, international corporations through to middle size businesses, charities, manufacturing and service industries.

The organisation’s policies and processes have to support project management effectively, and project management skills and behaviours should be cultivated. Generally the use of teams should be encouraged and, in particular, Human Resource departments should change their way of working to one that supports team-led development.

Maxim 6: Make it easier

Change is hard enough without putting obstacles in its way; organisations should make it easier for themselves. Organisations often fail to remove internal procedural obstacles to change initiatives. They fail to harmonise all related activities to make it easier to achieve. It is essential to integrate and refine management processes.

There are four types of processes that require examination when changing an organisation:

• Project management processes, i.e. those processes that programme and project teams have to carry out to manage the initiating, running and closing of projects with particular emphasis on controlling quality and managing risk.
• Functionality testing and accreditation processes, i.e. ensuring that products work, meet functional requirements, and conform to standards.
• Implementation and transition processes, i.e. the processes to commission and decommission the products of the projects, introduce new ways of working, and to realise benefits.
• Business processes in terms of how the business operates, i.e. the processes within the organisation that deliver benefits to customers (addressed under Maxim 2.)

With respect to Maxim 6, we are interested in the first three.

There is often a fundamental problem with the way organisations approach process analysis and redesign. It is frequently argued that you need to know where you are before you can decide where to go. However, experience of change initiatives has consistently shown that putting effort into documenting existing processes saps people’s imagination, enthusiasm and creativity – with nothing much being achieved. On the other hand, going straight to the desired process (based on informed knowledge and experience of the existing processes) maintains energy, enthusiasm and creativity. People largely do know their existing processes even if they are not documented and few understand the whole process. They usually have a view on how their processes can be improved. It is those ideas that we wish to capture.

Maxim 7: Frame the solution

Set the boundaries of the work so that it is big enough to solve, small enough to achieve. The scope and authority should be such that key issues can be resolved.

People often scope to suit what they think they have permission to do rather than what needs to be done.

Keep duration of projects as short as possible. Maintaining senior management attention and commitment, or maintaining a high-calibre project team, after 12 to 15 months is extremely difficult.

Do not set too narrow a scope. Project managers should make sure that they are not down-scaling the scope for an easier life at the expense of the business objectives. Make sure that ‘showstoppers’ (those issues which if not resolved will ensure that the initiative will fail) are identified and the means and authority to address them are included within the project or programme.

Remember that business risk overrides project risk. Business risk is often increased when reducing project risk. The organisation needs to assess whether project risk reduction is worth the increase in business risks. Projects sometimes have to carry additional project risk to avoid the organisation being exposed to a greater business risk.

Maxim 8: Leave no hiding place

This maxim promotes the idea that the results of the change should be measured, publicized and appraised. The management of performance is essential to establish a focus on delivery. Ensuring successful delivery of purposeful change will only be done if there is sufficient pressure that it should be done. To support successful delivery there should be a focus on products and quality criteria, and project plans and controls should be developed and maintained.

For the level of accountability required, stakeholders, customers and, sometimes, the public have to accept a lack of certainty in project outcome. Living with uncertainty, within a rigorous approach as outlined here, increases the likelihood of achieving successful change. Living with uncertainty is easier because, within Maxim 8, Onemind comes full circle:

• Having been clear about the business objectives, your definition of products is clearer.
• Having defined the products clearly, projects are easier to manage.
• By including users in the development of the objectives and in the definition of products, and communicating this, it is easier to obtain their product sign-off; users are more likely to cooperate with the transition and be happier with the results.
• Industrial strife can be greatly reduced, wasted effort can be avoided, bureaucratic projects need not be attempted, and change need not fail.

Conclusion

The Onemind way when followed in its totality provides an effective model of purposeful change. It integrates the myriad and complex processes of change management, sets the context for rigorous programme and project management, and reduces the workload to achieve successful and effective change.

By sharing a common understanding of the total picture of organisational change, with supporting processes and techniques, we can more effectively persuade senior management to see the essential importance of programme and project management skills and processes.

Furthermore, we will be more effective in applying best practice theory, and selecting and using those management and IT systems that support that best practice.