Italy ... Lessons in change management

I follow the events in my native Italy with interest and with a good dose of apprehension. Much turmoil reins the Italian political landscape. Populisms, anarchism, opportunism, regionalism, and other –isms flourish as politicians scramble to pick up votes. As it has been said, Nero is playing the fiddle while Rome is literally burning.

I watch with amusement the pronouncements that many well-known political figures make during weekly talk shows on television. It looks to me that many in Italy see themselves as experts in economics, finance, and other disciplines. The debate is so vociferous that it is impossible for the average person to hear what people are saying. The only thing that people seem to agree on is that everybody who does not agree with them is plainly wrong.

Italy has been at a crossroad for the past 20 or so years. As the global economy has changed, adjustments and repositioning have become critical for survival. Globalization forces nations to make changes they would otherwise be unwilling to make. Some nations have adjusted and others have not. The difference? Some cling to the status quo while others are clever enough to find in the emerging competitive arena niches where they hold an edge. Those nations that hone their competitive advantage have a better chance to navigate through the global economic storm.  Those who that do not give birth to social unrest and much dislocation.

It might sound pretentious for me to stick my nose in the debate. Why? Credibility, for one. You are so removed that you might not be able to understand it. Secondly, you cannot use the lens of a country to analyze another’s problems. There might be some truth to both. But I am not that far removed. I visit Italy two or three times per year, so I experience and relate to the Italian reality. I also spend much time in the local coffee shop listening to what people say about their lives, their political views, and personal circumstance. I have learned over the years that you cannot learn very much unless you are willing to listen with an open mind.

By the way, I have spent most of my professional life as a change management consultant, mostly in the organizational realm. It has been my lifelong passion to learn how organizations seek or resist change, how to create readiness for change, how to institutionalize change, and how to discern desirable from undesirable change.  I have learned along the way that there are no magic bullets or one size fits all solutions. Not all solutions are equal. Some are more painful than others, others might be less superficial, and so on. Change depends on a variety of factors, some more compelling than others. 

I devoted my post-graduate and doctoral studies to this issue.

A Little Theory

Kurt Lewin, a pioneer social psychologist, is the author of the force field analytical model. The model helps us understand change and what needs to be done to improve readiness for change and to make change stick. Lewin posited that in order to bring about change the current situation must be unfrozen, and after change takes place to refreeze it.  The critical notion is that the status quo is the result of two clashing forces: forces pushing for the change and forces opposing it.  When these two opposing forces are of equal size, the result is no change.

Lewin teaches us that there is the right way and the wrong way to change. More push, without lessening resistance, can result in more tension. Like a rubber band, when the push stops, the situation reverts to the previous level (status quo ante). So the best way is not to add more positive forces or sheer brutal strength, but to examine the opposing forces to see which ones are more amenable to change and focus on removing or weakening their strength. The benefit comes from altering the balance of forces, and by turning a negative into a positive one.

Forces Against Change

People and organizations resist change that they perceive takes away gains, benefits, or privileges. Losses are hard to swallow, albeit necessary some time. Some examples follow:

·      Labor unions, yesterday’s champions of change, are todays the most formidable resistors. They do not want to see changes that, in their mind, weaken their hard-fought gains in job security, working conditions, and pay.

·      Bureaucracies fear change because they know fully well that they might be bloated and thus targets for change. Flat organization designs scare off tall pyramids with the potential elimination of jobs or job levels. Loss of turf and power are to be avoided at all cost.

·      Vested interests of all kinds. Politicians resist attempts to reduce their numbers or privileges. Judges resist any changes that increase their workload or reduce their influence. Professors are reluctant to let go of tenure privileges that threaten their so-called academic freedom.

Forces For Change

There are formidable forces pushing for change. The primary one is the perception that survival is at stake; the secondary one is that people are dissatisfied with the status quo. Some examples:

·      Young people. They watch their elders meander about without meaningful reforms that would permit them to realize their career ambitious and desire for personal independence.  The higher the level of unemployment, the more formidable the push for action.

·      Enlightened Leaders. They are bright, well prepared, and dedicated political and civic leaders wanting a better future for their country and their compatriots. They are found amongst all political parties. Although they share the same end, they often clash amongst themselves with respect to the means and tactics.

·      The Silent Majority. People from all walks of life, varied age groups, and economic well being who are dissatisfied with the status quo and who expire to a better future. People who have watched the revolving political door and the failure to keep electoral promises. People who are tired of waste, corruption, and inaction.

Forward to the Present

Italy has a young prime minister (Matteo Renzi) at the helm. He has selected a younger group of ministers, and some respected public servants. He has an ambitious agenda. But he is encountering resistance along the way, from his political opponents and members of his own political party. Rather than looking at the merits of his agenda folks often attack his style and his exaggerated (perceived) sense of urgency.

Unions lament their lack of consultation on important legislation affecting their members. Judges try to discredit laws intended to streamline a constipated judicial process. Politicians and bureaucrats protest attempts to control multiple stipends and pensions. Members of the same political bloc are unhappy with what they perceive deviation from the political orthodoxy of their party.

World leaders, on the other hand, sing praises to the young prime minister. They highlight his ambitious reform agenda, relish his defiant style, and admire his sense of urgency. Economic trends are starting to improve. The future shines a little brighter. There is hope in the midst of chaos.

I, for one, see one of the first post-WWII political leaders whose rhetoric matches his actions. Too often politicians espouse a certain program while running for office and then proceed to do exactly the opposite. Leaders become extraordinary because they possess superior capabilities. Renzi's leadership profile includes real commitment to change, a superior intellect, results-orientation, and effective oratory skills. On the short side, his interpersonal skills need improvement -- he has a knack for belittling those who disagree with him or to talk down on those who disagree with him, thus creating resentments.  This weakness, in politics, can be fatal.

Question is: will this young, fearless leader survive? His future is in the hands of his own party. His biggest critics are failed leaders of the past, some say. His style surely has made internal enemies seek revenge.