A tool originally intended to define green building
metrics - repurposed as a ‘design’ tool.
An ‘end of pipe’ measuring stick relied on to drive change
in professional practice and collaboration. That can’t end well.
Because sustainability was initially introduced to the
industry through LEED and project implementation, it has taken many of us a
decade to realize that sustainability must start with the organization, and not
the project.
Evidence
of this can be seen in many company’s portfolios, where the
(relatively) small number of LEED certified projects seem to have no
influence over the larger percentage of projects not meeting the same
targets. Only when sustainability is institutionalized throughout a company
will all of its projects be "green".
With
LEED, the first place of engagement was the “front lines”, on project
teams, without a cultural shift at the top levels of organizations.
Because the project teams were
'temporary', situationally-defined groups, the substantive changes needed to
institutionalize sustainable mindsets and cultures could not be addressed
effectively. Not surprisingly, the
outcome of this change thrust upon transient project teams was a lot of resistance,
the perception of LEED being inextricably associated with stress, anxiety and
cost, and the need (by LEED consultants) to provide an inordinate amount of
'hand-holding' (often beyond the scope of what they were being paid to do).
Successful implementation of LEED happens only as a result
of long-lasting communities of professionals united by a common culture,
structure and systems.
Once your company understands that sustainability is more
than having some LEED projects in your portfolio, and success of a project is inseparable from high
performing, healthy building, you know that internal shifts need to be intentional and change must be
deliberately planned and managed. (Those
whose leadership is divided, who think everything is ‘ok’ as it is, are losing
profit and competitive advantage without knowing it.)
Deliberate change
achieves specific goals (or conversely, if you want to achieve specific goals,
they will likely require deliberate change!)
In the corporate business world of change management
models, the two dominant thinkers are Kurt Lewin and John Kotter. The gist of
Lewin’s model is that in order for things to change, the initial status quo
must be broken, a transition must occur and then a new status quo must be
established. Kotter uses an 8 step model, breaking down different aspects of
successful transformation. Here, I will
summarize Kotter’s concept in the context of what I’ve seen work in this
industry. In subsequent articles, I will
dig more deeply into each step, with examples from our work with organizations.
John P. Kotter’s 8 Steps to Organizational
Transformation
(Kotter’s steps in bold, followed by my
comments on each):
1 ESTABLISH A SENSE OF URGENCY
A critical aspect
of getting ‘buy-in’ is to frame the desired change with a credible sense of
urgency. There are so many competing priorities and issues, anything that isn’t
perceived as urgent will fall below the radar. There are 5 steps to doing this,
from doing an assessment of current conditions to competitive analysis, which
will be detailed in the next article.
2 FORM POWERFUL GUIDING COALITIONS
Don Quixote
tilted at windmills; effective advocates build coalitions and create a base of
champions who represent different company functions. These people help inform
the case for urgency as well as contribute to a process of broader engagement
which can become viral. There are specific communication skills and strategies
for creating coalitions that achieve results; it’s not enough just to include
those who are already in “the choir”.
3 CREATE A VISION
Buckminster Fuller
said, “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To
change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” A powerful vision inspires, excites and
engages people. For a vision to help enact change, it also needs to infer
exciting opportunities and be connected to specific actions that can be taken.
Vision needs to be married directly with “SMART” goals and an implementation
plan that shows employees what will be achieved over time, how, and what
metrics will be used to track success.
4 COMMUNMICATING THE VISION
Deliberate and
comprehensive communication strategies are critical to expanding buy-in,
clarifying confusion and overcoming the discomfort that will certainly be
present as people are generally afraid of change and perceived risk. It is also
a way of demonstrating commitment of leadership and promoting behavior/culture
change throughout the organization.
5 EMPOWERING OTHERS TO ACT ON THE VISION
Empowering others
requires two main actions: creating a system and structure of accountability
that makes people feel that they ‘own’ the change and are part of making it
happen; and removing the barriers that would inhibit change/compromise reaching
goals.
6 PLANNING FOR AND CREATING SHORT-TERM WINS
Nothing creates
momentum like success. The plan must include short term successes in the areas
that matter most to the company overall. Visible performance improvements,
enhanced client relationships, internal gains – must all be acknowledged and
individuals and teams rewarded for their success.
7 CONSOLIDATING IMPROVEMENTS AND PRODUCING STILL MORE
CHANGE
Credibility is
key. Helping shift the perceptions of “green” from the fringe to core business
issues means leveraging real successes into political capital and pathways to
change systems, processes and behaviors so that they align with long term
goals.
8 INSTITUTIONALIZE NEW APPROACHES
Last but not
least, the actual systems, tools, resources, processes and methodologies that
are the daily operations of a company need to be aligned with the new culture.
Although this is very operational, there can’t be enough said about intentional
culture change which is the thread running through all of the above.
In general, both Lewin and Kotter describe intentional
processes that start by identifying the need for change and clearly
communicating why the change is important, continue by a strategic and
methodical engagement of stakeholders as part of the change effort and then
focus on fully integrating changes into the systems, processes and monitoring
of the organization. Both models address culture as well as procedure and recognize
that change must be led, but is not only top down.
If you don’t think being a green firm means
organizational change, than you should just give it up now, you will never
really be successful and your competitors will leave you in the dust.
If you think the % of LEED projects in your portfolio is
a true and complete measure of how green your firm is, you are missing the
point.
And if you think green building is not important (or is a
dirty word, as I've been told...) than you are letting your fears and ignorance compromise your long
term success.
It is critical to differentiate between individual
project successes and institutional transformation. Failure to understand the
over-arching systems issues may lead to fixing specific problems without
correcting the thinking that produced the problems in the first place!
Management consultants come and go, and from what I’ve
heard, over-reliance on them can leave cynicism and no lasting change. As with
anything, consultants have their place, but the real measure of effectiveness
and commitment is to see how these efforts are internalized as part of the
company’s DNA. Anyone who has been
successful at institutionalizing sustainability in their firm will tell you
that it requires real change, culturally and otherwise. The question is, how effectively are you
going to take on this challenge? Being informed and intentional can make the
difference between a long, bumpy process that results in “random acts of
sustainability” and a more streamlined process with measurable results.
LEED is a program of the US Green Building Council
LEED is a program of the US Green Building Council
Barbara, Thanks for this post. As an industry we need to use Kotter's change management framework and apply it to transform the building industry. Just imagine if we got serious about eliminating the 40% waste in the building process and were able to build all new buildings to Living Building Challenge standards at less addition cost by 2020.
ReplyDelete