
|
Spotlight
on Consulting Issues Leader Speak: A Conversation With Harry Levinson Diana Gordick, Ph.D.
Dr.
Levinson participated in an interview with Diana Gordick,
Ph.D. on September 23, 2003. The conversation, which
discusses several of his contributions to the field of
organization development, is presented below.
Harry:
Well, executives really need to communicate about upcoming
changes and the reasons for them. Often they are not prepared
for resistance and you have to set their expectations. One has
to confront people repeatedly with change and the logic behind it,
and then help them mourn the loss of their previous ways of doing
things. The CEO has to be the chief mourner, by explaining he
doesn’t like the changes either, but that they are necessary.
It may be terminating old friends, or finding new ways of doing
things. You have to enable them to express their anger,
depression, and worry. You have to keep them organized so they
are mutually supportive and maintain the integrity of their work
group. You may have to do retraining. There is usually
anxiety about learning to use new machines. They worry if they
are smart enough, quick enough. Organizations ought to allow
the mourning of the loss of what they already do well. It’s
also important to help people who have to leave the organization
find new jobs, identify skills, make initial contact and get
started. Maybe provide training sources in local vocational
schools. People like to know that management gives a damn and
is trying to help them. When people who leave come back in a
reunion, where leadership is mutually supportive with expressions of
anger and disappointment, it can be helpful. It was difficult to get some executives to believe they had to help others. I’ve found the lack of knowledge and information to be the biggest barrier. People go from one organization to another more readily. Today there are a lot of people without jobs due to the tech decline or have jobs unrelated to their training. They are turned loose with no regard. The Menninger Foundation just left 1000 people without jobs when they moved from Kansas to Texas. I don’t know any program that could have met their needs fully. Even clinically trained people don’t always know how to manage the change process. The rapid pace of change is an issue. I don’t know of any program that helps managers deal with the speed at which things happen. Diana:
In contrast, what have been the biggest success stories you’ve
seen from investing in human capital? Harry: Companies in which people have worked for a long time are invested. They cost more to manage, but their reputation is more attractive to prospective employees. They can avoid possible lawsuits from terminating people and attract better talent. It is costly to do something psychologically wise and it is also costly to do something impulsively and without thought. You have to communicate a humane perspective to the people who remain. When they see the sensitivity they can be more comfortable and it dissipates bitterness and guilt. I think most people understand things have to change and people want to engage in change with the management. This builds continuity and morale. Diana:
How do firms create and sustain a psychological contract without
becoming paternalistic? Harry:
You have to have open communication about what things will happen,
what the change process will look like, and allow people as much
control as possible. Diana:
So you need to provide the information, and allow employee
independence and some control while being involved? Harry: Yes, you reconstruct work groups, thrash out leadership issues, look at the hierarchy of the organization, and the alternatives to making changes. If you are engaged with people and carrying on a discussion about these things the fact of the interchange treats them as mature adults. You can’t have an effective psychological contract without communication about what’s going on and what’s expected of each party. You describe the current reality and allow people to react with anger or mourning. You retrain them and help them deal with the fact that some people are going to lose power. A person loses prestige and the feelings of competence that went along with having that power. We have to have a way for people to cope with that. One of the major New York newspapers went to computer when my cousin was a linotype operator. He went into a shell. Management has to recognize that some people will do this. Psychological management is an issue. People need to manage psychologically as well as they manage economically. When change occurs there is a loss of role, status, and often friends. Diana:
What kind of changes do you see affecting our work environments over
the next 20 years? Harry:
The first is to recognize that people will no longer stick with a
company if they are not adequately challenged and have room for
upward mobility. More people are ready to move where there is
greater challenge, opportunity, and compensation. A lot more
attention has to be given to psychological growth. Some people
will be fast movers and get rapidly promoted. Others will move
more slowly. There is not much attention given to that or the
implications for selection. It is important to realize people
will reach a level of conceptual capacity and then taper off.
We must learn more about conceptual development. The work of
Elliot Jacques is a good start, and we need to meet employee needs
more actively than we are currently. Second, we are having a
lowering of the levels of hierarchy. There are fewer levels
and greater flexibility for leaders at those levels. It’s a
kind of decentralization. It’s good because more people will
be able to rise more quickly if they have the capacity. Third,
people will develop more competence. They will use training
night schools as their skills rapidly become obsolete. It’s
a competitive swim and they will have to keep up with it. At
GE, they have lower level people coming into the organization
teaching existing people skills so they can keep up with the rate of
change. You will also see a greater effort at keeping people
together for a specific task or function. High tech people
that want to follow their own noses and innovate will split off and
start their own company. If there is financial support and
opportunity for continuous learning available, people are more
likely to stay. There is greater transiency when people have
shot their wad and are no longer challenged at work. Keeping
these people involved requires more attention to training and
re-training. It would involve learning more cultures and
languages and developing activities in other countries. Kansas
State University developed a Japanese Language Program—in
Kansas. However, it’s a hit. People are becoming
increasingly sophisticated about other cultures and economics.
Work requires us to move so frequently that we can no longer be
isolated and ignorant of others. This parallels the growth of
psychological man. There is a movement from small towns to big
cities. People want to be where the action is, where jobs are,
and where they can continue to be stimulated. Unfortunately,
there is a loss of support and loss of previous ways of doing things
when people transition. I was just reading something about a
small town in Mississippi that is practically empty and I know in ,
where I grew up, people are leaving for larger towns. Diana:
We’ve seen similar movement here in Georgia. One of my first
consultation projects was with two elementary schools that were
merging due to “urban flight.” Harry: One of the things I really notice that helps or hinders people from adjusting well to change is the capacity for complexity. People have different capacities for managing complexity. If you look at the work of Elliot Jacques, he identifies 8 levels of conceptual capacity based on how far ahead people have to look. There are different levels of complexity for different roles. So, a brick layer has to look ahead 8 to 10 months, a social worker or teacher has to look ahead two years, a division head has to look ahead 10 years, and a CEO has to look ahead 50 years. This is even part of the reason for our divorce rate. Partners may start out at the same conceptual level, but one may develop more rapidly than they other. This psychological gap continues to grow as they mature to the point where they can hardly talk to one another. This is not addressed in our culture, these differences in conceptual capacity and growth. Diana: How does this play out at work? Harry: In order to rise up in a flatter organizational you need a greater opportunity and skill in doing a wider variety of things. You are not limited by hierarchy, so if you are not being stimulated it makes for greater mobility across work groups or projects. In some organizations there used to be twenty levels. If you reduce these to five levels, people soon realize whether they have the capacity for the increased demand for complexity. You will easily notice which people have the greater innovative capacity. For example, in a chain of grocery stores that is limited to five levels, you can easily see which managers have bigger imaginations, or who responds to change more quickly. There is more visibility and more opportunity for mobility. In flatter organizations people can self-evolve, and if the organization won’t support it, they leave. You can see this across several companies; I just read an article about this happening at Proctor & Gamble. Diana: Yes, similar movement is occurring across business sectors and those who leave often start their own firms. I’m teaching a graduate level class this semester and one of the basic concepts the students are getting a grasp of is the difference between collaboration and consultation and when to use each. When you work with companies on these issues, do you typically work from a collaborative or consultative perspective? Harry:
It depends on the company and the problem. For example, I
started consulting with the CEO of a technology firm. Their
in-house psychologist suggested he give me a call. The CEO was
in a depressive rage. He did not want to change. I did a
three day seminar on change processes for the executive group, and
continued to consult over the years. I worked with the HR
department to help them carry on the steps of change by doing a
series of workshops. I continued to meet with top management
people until they downsized to the point where I was no longer
involved. It’s important to develop internal competence at
companies. These concepts are teachable and understandable and
can be carried out. There are several components of
psychological management that you can teach on an ad hoc or ongoing
basis. I’ve worked with IBM and GE in this manner. What I’ve found with students, is it is helpful for them to get a sense of how much the client has to rigidly control what is going on. They need to work at finding ways of coming at the person tangentially so you don’t threaten their sense of control frontally. I try to teach them to have some judgment of the state of mind of the client. Sometimes the client is depressed. Sometimes they are dealing with a difficult problem and have thrown in the sponge. You have to look at what you need to do to bolster the client without helping them feel more helpless. In teaching consultation, it is also important to address countertransference. I had one student who was giving feedback and completely excoriated an executive. When we worked with that we found she was responding to countertransference. Students may not be aware of that kind of problem. You also have to help them confront resistance. We had one CEO who managed to always be away when the students were on site. Finally, we had the students show up when they were not expected. Sometimes people get wrapped up in avoiding and evading real and important issues. Diana:
Well, Harry, you’ve had a wealth of good ideas and experience.
What’s on the horizon for you? Harry: I keep one major client that I see as a member of an advisory board. It keeps me alert and on the ball. I’m also organizing some of my Harvard Business Review articles into a new book. Diana: I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you informally. You have made such a valuable contribution to the fields of psychology, organizational behavior, and consultation. I want to thank you for making the time to present your thoughts for our readers and for keeping us abreast of your new work.
|
||||||