We are frequently allowed to take an in-depth look in organizations who recently formulated their new Core Values. Often we will find these new Core Values in communication channels, like the companies’ website. And that’s about it. When looking at the behavior of employees (including the management) little has changed. Interesting.
What goes wrong?
We noticed that there are some similarities between ‘the way new core values are introduced’ and the choice between Agile Scrum and Waterfall in the IT-branch.
Agile Scrum and Waterfall
Agile Scrum, probably the most popular software development method, contains (in our words): that in a short time a new, imperfect product is created and launched. Thereafter the development team quickly searches for user-feedback and based on this feedback, the product will be further developed, improved and optimized. With Waterfall on the other hand, the new product is invented and conceptualized in a detailed manner. The product is only introduced to customers, when the product has a high quality standard based on the expected needs in the market.
When applying Agile Scrum to new Core Values, this means that the Core Values are (roughly) formulated. Next, the whole organization is going to make the values specific and optimize them by experimenting and providing feedback based on these experiments. Applying Waterfall to Core Values would mean that the Core Values have to be described in detail and in a really specific manner before introducing them into the organization. In practice this (often) means that the Management Team receives the task to describe the values in detail for all levels (strategic, tactical and operational) in the organization.
Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. For either of these methods to be successful, it is crucial that it is clear which method is chosen.
New Core Values
When new Core Values are being formulated, we are lucky to talk with all organizational levels about it. And we see a trend. Most Management Team members use the Agile Scrum method. However, most employees expect the Waterfall method, proven by statements as: “Our Management Team is not even capable to specify what we have to do different”.
And here, a problem is born. The Management Team is waiting for experiments and feedback, and at some point they are not even waiting anymore as other issues take over. The employees wait for specific descriptions and see ‘not receiving them’ as a reason to not change anything. In addition, the time and space to experiment is often not facilitated properly. Which is even more of a reason to stick to the old habits.
The other way around we see the same issue. The Management Team chooses to go for Waterfall and the employees expect to be involved is the decision making process. In this case, ‘not being involved’ becomes the reason for resistance and for not changing anything.
What can change management learn?
This is basically about clarity with regard to the method of change. Agile Scrum? Waterfall? Something else? What does that mean on a process level for all employees and teams? If the method is unclear, you will probably create your own resistance. Which really is a shame!
A crucial role of communication in this process lies with middle management. A lack of clear communication results in in unclear expectations, goals and space. Putting the middle management between a rock and a hard place; a new way of working (based on the core values) and maintaining the targets. There often seems to be a conflict here (or at least it is experiences as such). This is how the middle management becomes a bottle neck instead of a catalyst.
Is your company in the process of formulating and/or implementing new Core Values? Are new Core Values recently implemented without the expected impact? Fresh Habits is here for you!
Would you like reading more about our view on change management. This and this article are worth reading!