Hi everyone, welcome to our show Chief Change Officer. I'm Vince Chen, your ambitious human host. Our show is a modernist community for change, progressives in organizational and human transformation from around the world. Today's guest is Richard Carson, consultant, strategist, and the guy who once walked away from a government job to join the consultants he just hired. In this two-part series, we talk about what happens when organizations try to change, but forget about people. Richard shares what most consultants get wrong, why empathy isn't optional, and how a terrible time tracking system inspired his now 39-step change model. It's practical, honest, and filled with stories you won't forget. Let's get started. Welcome Richard, welcome to Chief Change Officer, welcome to our show. You have this book called Book of Change. Naturally, this show is perfect for you. Before we start digging into your book, in your learnings, tell us something about yourself, your journey leading up to the book. I like to characterize my philosophy as corporeum or seize today, and I say that because even though my background isn't urban planning, I haven't planned my career and take in a particular trajectory. I basically seized opportunities, career opportunities, as they presented themselves. So my career is starting out wanting to be an archeologist. Once I realized it was really about digging in dirt, I moved on from that in the architecture. Architecture led me into urban planning. Urban planning eventually led me into what is called community development, which is an umbrella for engineering, plan review, urban planning, a variety of kind of disciplines under one umbrella, and eventually into consulting. So every time something came along that I found interesting, I pursued it, and I've been very happy with it. I like what you said earlier. How even though you were an urban planner, you didn't exactly plan your own career path. It wasn't all met out. You just evolved along the way. Something would happen and you would think, yeah, this feels right. So you would dive deeper and then something else would come up, maybe connected to what you already like, and you would follow that too. These days, people throw away the word perfect a lot, but your path wasn't perfect. It was real. It unfolded step by step. That got me curious. When you say something interested you, what actually sparked that interest? Was it just a gut feeling? Was it a hunger to learn something new? Or are you one of those people who's actually addicted to change? Urban planning is part of it is that I've always been interested in community and organizations are basically a community of people. And so I've looked at community at a scale and I'll give you an example. I was the regional planning director for the Portland metro area of 1.5 million people. And in that job, we created plans for land use, solid waste management, wastewater, open space, a variety of really large plans. That is like a maximum scale of community. And for a while I was invited to off and on to three governors of Oregon in both land use, environment and economic developments. That's even a larger scale of community. But also the most enjoyment I ever had was I was the head, I guess the planning director for a community of 25,000 people. And I really enjoyed it because I would walk into a grocery store and somebody would stop me and say, can you get a stop sign on the corner of X and Y? I'd go, wow, let me look into that. I could actually do something real. Later on when I got into the consulting work, I started working with other organizations and really trying to solve their problems. And how I got into that was one of my last jobs as a manager, I took on an organization that had a lot of problems. And so I hired a consultant to do what is called a performance audit. The GAO government standards for his performance audit. So they came in and did a performance audit. And I got really interested in that to the point where I left my job. I went into work for these people because I loved it so much, it was so interesting. And I went back and got my doctorate work in organizational psychology and eventually applied that to what I do now, which is organizational change management. So that's kind of the evolution of how I started out digging in the dirt and not liking it and moving on to helping organizations with their problems. And basically it always starts with a problem. When somebody comes to me and basically says, look, we have a problem, X, Y, Z, and we want you to help us fix it. Maybe it's because I'm compulsive about fixing things. I should maybe I should have been an engineer instead of an organizational change person. Whenever somebody comes to you and says, we have a we have this problem we want you to help us with, chances are they're wrong. Chances are that isn't the actual problem. The problem is a symptom of something else. And they really don't know what that something else is. They just know that, look at that example, I just worked for a company government in Southern California. And they came to me and basically said, the city series and the business people, which are usually opposed, or all complaining about the same thing or both the performance of a particular agency. And when I looked into it, it was really interesting, but you know what they thought was the problem. It wasn't really it. And usually it's usually what I end up giving them a series of recommendations about how to approach the different issues of different problems that like family that are resulting in these symptoms. Yeah, I agree with you on this totally. A lot of times what happens is whether it's a elected board or a board of directors or company, they will tell you what the problem is. They'll say, here's the one we want you to fix. And my first reaction is maybe that I'm not going to start from a position of just as the problem. I'm going to fix it. I'm going to start from the position of I'm going to talk to people internally and externally and ask them what they think. In other words, like I will start with the front counter line staff who, you know, do the customer service and I'll start with that level and say, what do you think works around here and what do you think doesn't. And then can then take it to outside stakeholders to managers in Billy get the 360 degree look at what people are thinking about what works and what doesn't. And then it'll go back to the people who hired me and basically say, look, this is what I found out. Now you can deal with it or not. You want to deal with it? Then I will give you some recommendations. By the way, when I talk about recommendations, I use internal staff to develop answers. And that's because I want buy-in from them. I'll give you an example of something that I was thinking about the other day. It has to do with Trump and Musk and their dodge or government efficiency. This was done before by President Flanagan and El Gore. But the way they did it was they went in and they basically engaged the staff to find solutions. And it was by all accounts very successful or asked Trump and Musk are basically coming in and threatening people, their jobs, and they're going to have a very hard time getting those people to be part of the solution. It's going to be a great deal of resistance to them in day one, not because they deserve it, but just because of just people are afraid. Change out. Being in the scarce people and the first thing you have to do, at least what I do is sit down with folks and say, look, if you do this, if you work on this, your life, your career, your work environment will be better, no worse. Yeah, of course, everyone has their own idea of what getting better means. And in the office environment is not just about change. There's politics, power dynamics, and other things that aren't even part of the equation when we talk about improving or evolving. Some people resist change, not because they don't understand it, but because change threatens the status quo. And for them, that's uncomfortable. The mantra usually to begin with is, but we've always done it this way. Why change it? We've done it this way for a decade. Now, you've written a book called the Book of Change. You also hold a doctoral degree in organizational change. So I imagine you've studied a wide range of change models. Obviously, we don't have time to go through all of them here. You probably need a full course just to do that. But I'd love to get your quick take from your perspective and your studies. How have these models evolved over time? Has the way we think about change stayed more or less the same over the years? Or has it shifted drastically? Feel free to connect this with what you mentioned earlier about employees being part of the solution or what happens when there is resistance. Even in personal change, has the approach to change itself changed? Let's start with a quick note about centuries. I won't go back a lot on this, but in black Leonard BC, a Greek philosopher said, nothing endures but change. And that's what the change is to keep constant. It's hard for people to get their head around that, especially when you go in and try to work with them, because like I said, their attitude is, you've already done it this way. I think the recent history of change management starts in 1947 with Kurt Lewin, who created the first change management model. He did a lot of other things. He came up with the force field analysis action research. But change management, he came up with a three phase model, which was freeze, moderate, and then refreeze. Including mine, almost every model since 1947 has followed those basic three phases one way or another, sometimes it's five, sometimes it's seven. But they all basically say, you go in and shake it up, you reform it, then you maintain it. And you may do that several times. So since 1947, there's a Ross came up with the kind of stages of grief model, which was actually a change management model. It would Deming came up with a more statistically based model, mainly for the Japanese. He couldn't sell it to the American auto industry here until Japanese picked it up and made a success out of it. And then all of a sudden, the American automakers were interested in the Deming method. Carter later came along with one proswired had the adcor. They're basically all the same. So I came up with, I looked at Navy over 100 models. I came up with 22 from about from Kurt Louen to about 2016. I haven't found much since then. What I really looked at was trying to take it the next step. So what I've done instead of, even though it was, it's very generalized three to five steps. I came up with the same three phases, a little bit different name, but they're basically the same. Then I took those into 10 steps and then I took those in the 39 separate actions. Each with each action has a lot of detail about exactly what you can do to accomplish that particular action. So I took my own experience as a manager of organizations, as a consultant working with organizations and as an academic who learned about these different models and applied all of that to this particular model that we're talking about. So let me try to recap and you tell me if I got it right. You are saying that a modern history starting from the 20th century, a lot of the current models still trace back to Kurt Louen's work. The classic three step model. And since then, most of the newer models basically follow a similar structure, three, maybe five stages moving from where you are now to where you want to be with some kind of transition or shift happening in between. So would it be fair to say that even with all the new frameworks, the core idea hasn't changed all that much since Kurt Louen. Yes, for the most part, even though what's a lot of these models were developed earlier, wasn't a lot of interest until the book in search of excellence came out. That really made a big difference. That was the beginning of people in mainly in the business arena looking at it and saying maybe there's a better way to do this. And it's a decade later in search of excellence, kind of more into reinventing government, which was another book that was the one that both Clinton and Gore picked up on in terms of implementing what that was about. So the whole idea of, I think the word reinventing that is really key there, the whole idea of changing your organization and the fact that you, given what happens externally and internally, that forces change, it means you just can't ignore it. You shouldn't ignore it. It's like you said, change for the sake of change is ridiculous, but understanding the forces internally and externally and how to deal with all of a sudden became very, I guess, popular. So stakeholder, basically managing the stakeholder perspective, the involvement there, the needs, that concern. Is that what you mean? Yeah, exactly. You have developed a new model. What's the name of it? Yes, people sustain organizational change management. And I use the word people, very on purpose because organizations consist of people and it's people that are the problem, people that are the solution. And the only way they're going to sustain change is to create that mindset in the people who work in the organization. I'll give you really an example. Before I wrote the book, when I was implementing change in my organization, I did two things that really help. Consultants will give you a set of recommendations. They'll give it something in a binder and here you go. And a lot of people will just put that on a shelf. So the trick is to be successful is how do you maintain that? So two things you can do. Number one is to develop a multi-year strategic plan that dedicates accountability resources to affect the change. The other thing I did was I created a position of change manager. You go into organizations and you are going to find a lot of titles of change manager. In this particular person, this woman basically, I gave her the authority to walk around the organization and say to individual manager, you are given this task to be done on this date with these resources. How are you doing? And she would keep on. They had to meet those benchmarks. And so the strategic plan implemented in there was a person making it happen. It can't really be the manager because the manager has other things to worry about, but you need somebody whose job is to change manager. Heaviness multi-year strategic plan with resources and a change manager really makes a big difference. Yeah, I was just about to ask you about your model. You mentioned that it's built on Kurt Lewin's three step change framework. I'm curious, how is your model different from his or even from the other models out there? Give us an overview. How does your model work? What makes it similar to the classics and what makes it stand out? It's similar in that the three phases are to initiate an organizational assessment to implement organizational change and ready to maintain that change. So that's basically the same as Kurt Lewin's model. The detail on it is one of the things that's really trying to emphasize that he didn't touch on is the human aspect. You have to really have engaged people in the process. And I go into a lot of detail from the very beginning to the very end about how you use human resources. You need to obviously have buy-in from the leadership, but you have to have a process by which you engage the entire organization and everybody in it. Give them a role in making the process successful. And a lot of times what will happen is that a consultant comes in, makes recommendations, the leadership basically goes to the managers and says, this is it, do it. And no one has had any input and they're basically clueless in terms of what happens. A lot of times what happens is it won't work because the consultant didn't dig down in the organization to find out what the real problem was. Or even if you knew what the problem was, how do you successfully implement it? I'm very concerned about a lot of consultants are basically selling a product over and over and over to different organizations. They go in basically with the mindset that this is it, this is what you're going to do, this is what I'm going to tell you. I had Xerox, this is actually, I'd say funny, but it actually is sad. Somebody actually gave a report to an organization and they just basically Xerox changed the name but forgot and mystical. So the organization is reading this recommendation all of a sudden this other company name starts showing up. It's just like, how embarrassing is that? But not totally undercut their credibility, but every exercise has to be unique. And it has to basically be very sensitive to the people in the organization and you really, it's important to really listen. And that's why we die. The initial phases of the model are sitting down with managers, limestath, stakeholders, if you were a corporation, the consumers as well as suppliers. So really sitting down with those people and listening to what they're saying before you come to any conclusion at all. So back to your model, mentioned is people sustained. So while it includes the classic three stages, you've also built in several other steps and actions. What are they? Can you walk us through those? How do they come together in your model? I'll go through the 10 steps basically. First steps, number one is first steps, problem identification, scoping out the problem. Second is there's a kickoff that explains the program, the process, everybody in the organization. So you don't just send out an email, you sit down with each of the organizations, working groups, and answer their question, take them through the process and get their buy-in, get them to understand that change can be difficult, but they will be part of the process and will have input all through the process. Then there's data collection and assessment. This is probably the most boring part because you end up reading a lot of annual reports, a lot of statistical analysis, media, press information, everything that's written or data driven. Then you go out to the stakeholders and meet with the individual stakeholders, whether they're vendors, consumers, whatever, however they touch the organization. You get that feedback. Then you go next into the actual organization change. And I won't go through that in detail, but that's the diagnostic portion of the model. What I ended up doing was I ended up using the diagnostic model by the National Institute of Health, which was a medical diagnosis process. And what I found was that organizations and people are remarkably the same in terms of their ailments and symptoms and how you can diagnose them because organizations are made up of people. So that more I've used that diagnostic model. Then you implement the change. There's process mapping, re-engineering. Then you lock in change. There's a number of ways to lock the change in from executive leadership coaching to staff training, TQM, things like that. And then finally, you maintain the model. And that's, like I said, you can do that through multi-year strategic plans and budgeting primarily. But you also need a feedback loop that constantly goes back on an annual basis and kind of looks at the benchmarks that you set to see if you are achieving those in one note. That's it for today. We've heard how Richard Stumble into consulting survived a time tracking nightmare and started seeing patterns in all the wrong problems. But next, we get into the real playbook. The book of change. Why 39 steps might not be too many. And the human staff consultants usually skip. See you in part two. Thank you so much for joining us today. If you like what you heard, don't forget, subscribe to our show, leave us top rated reviews, check out our website, and follow me on social media. I'm Vizs Chen, your ambitious human host. Until next time, take care.
