Dealing with emergent change as a programme manager

This post was written to help make sense of a current work situation and as an exercise in reflective writing.

1.  The situation

I am currently working for a client providing programme management advice.  The programme objective is to develop a five year business plan which is acceptable to a wide range of stakeholders.  The approach adopted is bottom up bringing together a wide range of input and expertise from across the business - each area has developed their plans based on their worldview.  The resulting plans can be disconnected from other areas' plans.  Objectives,  themes, targets emerge from the combination of all this work.

2. Thoughts and feelings

I am finding the experience deeply uncomfortable from a number of perspectives:

• I am providing advice rather than having direct responsibility for delivery (requiring adaptive leadership in a position of little authority)
• the lack of 'good practice' programme management processes (eg formal review points, solution lockdown, adherence to plans)

The whole approach goes against the grain, not just as a programme manager, as this mindset has been embedded since an undergraduate learning surveying when working 'from the whole to the part' was a fundamental principle to minimise error.  The approach makes the situation feel even more complex and messy than it actually is.

3.  Evaluation

This experience has been good for me. The coincidence of the timing between the courses and this programme has forced me to engage in praxis to a considerable depth (in reflection, a real luxury).  Reading the materials and doing the exercises would not have been as effective learning. 

4.  Analysis

In Myers-Briggs terms I am, in common with many project/ programme managers, a J (Judging - prefer to get things decided) whereas the client company feels like a P (Perceiving - prefer to stay open to new information and options).  So perhaps the level of discomfort felt is is not surprising and maybe this is why so project type people are not successful in dealing with emergent change but try to control and manage it via targets and projectification and setting targets (Ison).
In spite of the discomfort it feels that I am learning, coping with a new situation and delivering valuable outcomes for my client.  That learning is happening is mainly due to two OU courses (Managing Systemic Change & Managing Beyond the Mainstream) providing me with frameworks to diagnose and understand this situation and tools to help manage within it.  In particular, the module materials have also provided me with input that proves that such emergent change can be successful.

5.  Conclusion

Even having learned about managing systemic change - the practical reality can still feel 'wrong' even when it is delivering successful results.
The distance imposed through an advisory position helps me remain objective, emotionally aware, provides space for reflection and consideration of praxis.
The combined experience of the programme and the modules has significantly changed how I will approach situations in future.

6.  What will I do differently having learned?

The last few months have provided me with many tools to help lead and manage change in complex uncertain situations.  A flippant answer to the question is 'everything'.  However, the key things I would do differently are:

• approach a new situation with an open mindset listening to feedback to determine what an appropriate approach might be in that context
• be prepared to adapt and change depending on what works
• accept that control may not be the best way to deliver effective lasting change

References:
Reflective writing framework based on Gibbs' (1988) from Open University 
Surveying principles - from the whole to the part
Myers Briggs - MBTI personality type
Adaptive leadership - OU Management Beyond the Mainstream, BB847
Systems Practice: How to Act, 2nd edition, Ison (2017)

Real life benefit v theoretical analysis for a TMA

The TMA's for the MBA module Management Beyond the Mainstream are split into 'builders'.  At the end of each unit within the module you complete a TMA builder based on that unit.

As an approach, its working very well for me.  Partly because I can write my response when the material is fresh but also because it spreads the workload.  Of these two reasons the writing while fresh is definitely the most important.  When I read over the builders before submitting the first TMA I was surprised (and upset!) at how much I had forgotten as I had progressed through the units.

The latest builder I have drafted is on the application of adaptive leadership.  Unlike a previous unit on dilemma theory I have really enjoyed this unit.  It has resonated hugely and has helped me understand what occurred in one particular project much more clearly.  It has also provided a way of looking at situations and a set of tools which, I believe, will be hugely useful in my practice (a really powerful example of praxis).

However, it is this richness and depth which has made writing the builder challenging.  Time has made it feasible to stand back and view the project and events with a degree of objectivity - and the theories around adaptive leadership have helped make sense of many of the events.  I had no difficultly completing the unit exercises there was such a wealth of material.

The guidance is that you should allow 2 hours to complete the builder.  It has taken me 8 to get a decent draft and will require some additional time before submission for final proof reading and tightening up.  It's not unusual for me to take more than the suggested amount of time but for this unit I was so immersed in using the theory to understand and analyse a real life situation it was difficult to stand back and be objective and focus on the theory in depth instead of the situation in depth.