HBR: "Change Through Persuasion" by David A. Garvin and Michael A. Roberto

This was assigned reading for an MBA class at UT Austin.

Highlights:
Paul Levy leads Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital from red to black while exceeding expectations.

Two parts to the turnaround process: 1) Develop Plan, 2) Implement Plan [Dr. Stephen R Covey would call this the Mental Creation and the Physical Creation respectively.]

Four phases of persuasion campaign:
1. Convince employees that radical change is necessary and show why the new direction is the right one
2. Position and frame, gather feedback and announce final plan
3. Manage employee mood through constant communication
4 reinforce new behaviors to prevent backsliding

Although the article doesn't reference Kotter's "Leading Change" and his 8 steps, Levy's actions definitely do highlight the 8 steps. However, the one thing I didn't see was any mention of a "guiding coalition" that Kotter would recommend.

A few bullet points

• Clear, concise vision –bold and compelling
• Prepare the soil for change
• Differentiate from past plans
• Convince people their organization is truly on its deathbed and quick, radical change is necessary
• Gain mandate for change
• Frequent communication – don't sugarcoat; balance negative with realistic hope and vision of future
• Change and reinforce behavior, not just thinking

Questions I have:
What about less than "massive" change? What if your organization is not on its deathbed?

What if you've already started to change? Is it too late to go back and start over Russian Mark

This is only one case. Where else has this been tried? With the strategy and tactics have had the same result within another organization?

Harvard Business Review--"Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail" by John P. Kotter

This is a Harvard Business Review article I had to read for class. I will give a quick summary of this interesting article--maybe my MBA colleagues will find it helpful.

Kotter argues there are eight steps to leading change in an organization. It is critical to execute each step correctly, in order, and at the right time.
The eight steps are:
1. Establish a sense of urgency
2. Form a powerful guiding coalition
3. Create a vision
4. Communicate the vision (use every vehicle available)
5. Empower others to act on the vision (remove barriers to change)
6. Plan for and create short-term wins
7. Consolidate improvements and produce more change (don't celebrate victory too early)
8. Institutionalize new approaches

Here are a few take aways from the article:

• Organizations must change from time to time
• There is a process (see the eight steps above) for change that must be respected
• More than 50% of companies fail at step 1
• The top of the organization must be on board
• About 75% of management's buy in is critical mass for change
• The guiding coalition must be the right size and be powerful (power is not just titles)
• The vision must be simple and concise enough to explain in under five minutes
• Leadership needs to be seen living the changes

Questions I had:

• How big of a "transformation" are we talking about? Is it necessary to go through this process for every little change?
• What are the most effective ways to gauge buy-in from managers and others that will be impacted?
• What if you are working within a restricted framework to be able to form your coalition or remove barriers to change? (i.e. volunteer organizations where you can't oust someone or a situation where you are assigned a team with very little opportunity to change)
• How do you prevent your change initiative from being co-opted by other projects or changes?

Translation vs. Interpretation. Internationalization and Localization.

Here we discuss four concepts related to the translation industry. Here is a quick written summary of this four minute video.

Translation and interpretation are two different things. Translation is written communication. Interpretation is oral communication. Some argue that they are still really the same thing, but if writing/reading and speaking were the same thing we wouldn't have different words to describe different functions.

Internationalization is essentially preparing a message or document in such a way as to make it language and cultural neutral so that when it goes to its target audience or market it is easy to customize. For example, if a transnational organization is preparing a document to go to various other countries, it would be more efficient to prepare the first document in a way that would minimize colloquialisms and cultural references unique to one target audience so that it is easier to customize to the other local target audiences.

Localization is essentially customizing the message or document for the local audience. The question to ask when reviewing the final localized document is, "does it feel natural?" For example, if an organization is localizing a document for an American audience, does the document "feel" American? Or does it feel like a translation? Normally you would use images, phrases, and cultural references that appeal to the target audience.

Internationalization and localization go hand in hand. The work of internationalization makes localization much easier and efficient.