Partners
Categories
Embracing Paradox: Lessons from Lego
If you are a change agent who has been tasked to implement a change program you didn’t design then this post is for you! According to researchers Lotte Lüscher and Marianne Lewis, implementing an imposed change program may depend on the ability of middle managers to recognize the paradoxes created by that change and address those paradoxes, not with right answers but with the right questions. Working with a division at Lego, the famous Danish toymakers, attempting to move to a structure of self-managed teams, the researchers found that middle managers there were initially paralyzed by the seemingly conflicting goals of increasing productivity while at the same time increasing quality.
Experiencing Paradox
In trying to help these managers make sense of the challenge they faced, they discovered that the managers were actually dealing with three distinct paradoxes.
· The paradox of performing - organizational change can encompass competing views on what constitutes success. For example, is the emphasis on productivity or creativity, efficiency or quality, control or empowerment of staff? Managers have to make sense of these ideas - the danger is that mixed messages circulate around the organization and confusion reigns.
· The paradox of belonging - change initiatives can radically change relationships within groups. For example, moving from an organization structure of functional groups into one run by self-managed teams involves a dramatic shift in management style, approach and sense of managerial identity. This can lead to what the researchers describe as “recursive cycles” - where managers get continually stuck in not knowing how to relate to and engage with the new arrangements.
· The paradox of organizing - a change program can introduce new goals for the organization but in doing so creates contradictions with existing systems. For example, the new emphasis may be on encouraging managers to take initiative while the existing system of rewards recognizes managers for consistency.
Working through Paradox: Sparring Sessions
To work through these paradoxes the researchers set up “sparring sessions” - times when managers would meet and confront the issues holding back change. Participants were encouraged to ask and accept challenging questions about their concerns and then work together to explore and resolve issues. These sessions tended to start with managers introducing an issue of personal concern - a “mess” - where the manager initially sought simple answers to complex problems. Through questioning, these messes were narrowed down into specific problems to help managers identify issues with greater precision, and often to realize that their current understanding was overly simplistic. Sparring sessions helped managers realize that many of the problems were real “dilemmas”, unresolvable with any single decision or choice.
Working Certainty & Smart Questions
The aim of these sparring sessions became attaining a “working certainty†with respect to any real dilemma, and so researchers and managers experimented with different types of questions to get there. Four types of questions prove most useful.
The first two kinds of questions are aimed at surfacing existing understandings of an issue:
· Linear questions - questions that would help participants describe their view of the situation and consider causal explanations - to help managers articulate general concerns. For example, why is this issue important to you and what factors do you think affect the issue?
· Circular questions - questions that widen the focus from descriptions to help the manager to consider broader connections elaborating the problem’s complexity. For example, how do you think your subordinates view your efforts to delegate?
The second set of questions work to explore alternative understandings:
· Reflexive questions - questions to encourage the consideration of implications of their plans and generate alternative options. For example, how does your current approach to delegation affect your role as manager?
· Strategic questions – the most confrontational and directive questions to experiment with different framings. For example, is what you are saying realistic?
Unlocking the Paradoxes
Although none of the three paradoxes were “resolved†by these questions, the question and the sparring sessions provided Lego managers with practical ways of dealing with them in order to advance the change program:
a) The key to managing the Paradox of Performing was to temporarily split it into pieces, either temporally – focusing first on one aspect or aim of the change and then another – or spatially - by separating aspects/aims of the change across different organizational teams.
b) Addressing the Paradox of Belonging meant asking questions that would force managers to “confront” their difficulties with tackling relational issues associated with change. Through the use of scenarios managers were encouraged to “play out†and experiment with new ways to engage with staff and explore how their new roles might necessitate a new style of leadership.
c) The most difficult was the Paradox of Organizing, where it turned out that the most helpful questions were those which led managers to “accept” paradox as part of their jobs - to make sense of it and be comfortable with it.
The experience at Lego highlights the tensions often faced by change agents tasked with implementing change projects with confusing, ambiguous and often contradictory goals and effects. In particular, it points to the importance of being able to accommodate rather than always eliminate tensions, of working through and with paradox.
Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. In press. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal.
Comments
2 Responses to “Embracing Paradox: Lessons from Lego”
Leave a Reply
Featured
Change Post-its: Cultural Intelligence & Change
Change Post-its are ideas we come across as we scan the internet and other sources for new ideas that... read more →
Communicating Strategic Change? Get Sensitive.
A key question in managing strategic change is how best to communicate that change to external stakeholders. It may... read more →
Our Community
Tom Lawrence, our editor, is the Weyerhaeuser Professor of Change Management at SFU.Read Tom's Posts
Graham Dover is a Doctoral student in the Business Faculty at SFU. Read Graham's Posts
For Lotte and I, this research project accentuated how paradoxes can fuel and stymie change. Yet enabling the positive potential of paradox seemed to depend upon new and more complicated thinking, rather than some clean and logical resolution.
We look forward to following this website, seeking further examples of alternative thinking and approaches to change.
Marianne W. Lewis
Prof. Lewis, I believe you’ll find that many of these paradoxes also surface when software development organizations attempt to implement the so-called “agile” methodologies.
Traditional approaches to software development generally rely upon centralized decision-making frameworks (e.g., the Unified Process for Software Development developed by Grady Booch et. al. at Rational Software, now part of IBM). However, the “agile” approaches (such as Extreme Programming or Scrum) decentralize decision rights so that development teams themselves are responsible for communicating with the user community.
One paradox this produces is that, while the teams are largely responsible for setting their own direction, they also must be accountable to their own management. The paradox applies to IT management as well, since it may seem paradoxical that they appear to abdicate traditional management responsibilities (such as specifying the work to be performed by their subordinates) but still retain the responsibility for evaluating the work that their subordinates have elected to perform.
SS