Escape the Bureaucratic Approach to Change Management & The Planning Stress Cycle

Many organisations take a the bureaucratic approach to change management. Resulting in the low success rate of change in most organisations. (Such as the 30% failure rate reported by McKinsey. The Planning Stress Cycle shows a common pattern for failure. It is also the reason most work places feel so stressful. People complain about yet another strategy or plan. Learn how to identify the cycle and escape the trap of the bureaucratic approach to change.

Key Takeaway

The “Planning Stress Cycle” describes a common problem with the bureaucratic approach to change management planning and implementing organisational change. Leading to a self sustained cycle of work-related stress control and failure. Breaking this cycle requires empowering frontline managers and adopting strategies like Polarity Management to foster a responsive and adaptive organisational environment.

Why Are So Many People Stressed at Work?

“Work is the most common cause of stress, with 79% of people affected by work-related stress in particular. The average working adult feels stressed for almost a third of their working day.”

Spill

For most of us, it seems our work places are places of constant stress. Stress anxiety and depression accounted for 50% of all work related ill health cases. While professional occupations had higher rates of stress than all other groups. Our constant cycles of stressful change is making us sick. Where does this The Planning Stress Cycle come from? Are organisations addicted to constantly managing change?

Bureaucratic Change Management and Stress

We get swept up in the daily storm of coping with the challenges thrust at us. Whilst there is constant change and stress it often feels like we are working hard with the promise that tomorrow will be better. But tomorrow never comes. More experienced people wryly roll their eyes at yet another change management initiative. They see the bureaucratic approach to change as the cause of much stress and little progress.

Why is There So Much Change Management?

There is so much change management as the adrenaline of action and change is exciting. The more things go wrong the more desire there is to change. The bureaucratic approach to change thrives on this tension between a plan and reality to keep up the sense of action in organisation. ‘Keeping people on their toes’.  Organisations can easily get trapped in the negative dynamics of the social impact of the planning stress cycle, seriously affecting customers staff and the future of the organisation. Whilst the decisions make to address the problems (often well intended) exasperate the problem.

How Change and Stress Lock Together to Create a Cycle.

The Planning Stress Cycle is so common in our organisations as it generates social dynamics that create a self-fulfilling cycle of stress. Our organisations seem addicted to change. Because the plans the old fashioned top down bureaucratic approach to change management, simply cause more problems requiring more change that has to be managed.

The users and staff of our services often feel frustrated by frequent change that often fails. It is often change management that gets blamed, rather than whether the process that produced the plans works in the first place. The plan is always ‘right’ it is the people and the way that it was implemented that is wrong.

Bad Change Affects Us All.

Everyone i know has frequently have felt the frustrations of dealing with utility services, government organisations and even using software where changes seem to be made just for the sake of change. Both staff and users are frustrated, as things that seem to work get replaced by new processes that don’t. It is so common that it seems to be a normal frustration of modern life.

Too Much Change Management is Not the Problem

Change management and a fast pace of change is not a bad thing. We want our services and out organisations to improve and improve quickly. Tesla owe much of their success to making rapid changes. The reason is not change management. It is a fundamental error in the strategy that leaders in bureaucracies use to put together their plans and implement their changes.

They have been taught (from school) to search for simple answers to problems. Indeed it is usually the people who have and can communicate a simple answer to every problem confidently and boldly that get promoted to the leadership roles. The managers that take time to consider the complexity of the problem are portrayed as unsure and indecisive.  Certainty helps to maintain a perception of an ordered system in bureaucracies.

What is the Bureaucratic Approach to Change Management?

The bureaucratic approach to change management means coming up with a plan then making everyone in the system follow the plan. Leaders in bureaucracies often feeling very pleased with themselves and their mighty new plan. They decide it is such a good plan that everyone should want to do it.

The bureaucratic approach to change management means implementing the change is seen as creating a big hefty change planning document, telling people about the change they must make, provide training and then put in rules and measures to make sure people do what they are told. But it is an amazing plan and people would be crazy not to want to do it, there would have to be something ‘wrong’ with them.

Logic Models Are Not a Solution, They Are Often Another Problem in Disguise.

The strategy creation of the bureaucratic approach to change means managers to reach for the most obvious simple solution to every problem sends us back around The Planning Stress Cycle to another round of change management. Whilst leaders repeatedly making the same mistake of using logic models to make decisions. As if everything in the world was a simple problem to be solved. People are robots to have their mindsets reprogrammed.

People Vary Logic Models Don’t.

The new change usually ignores the reality of things on the ground. Not understanding that things are the way they are for a reason. They work(ed). The fundamental error of the bureaucratic approach to change management is we simplify things at scale and forget that users/customers and staff are people with highly varying skills and needs. Science has also shown us the future is not as predictable as we would like to believe.

What is The Planning Stress Cycle?

The Planning Stress Cycle is the 8 steps from planning to failure of the bureaucratic approach to change management when the leaders send a plan based on oversimplification into the organisation, for change management to implement according to their implementation plan:

Planning Stress Cycle Stage 1: New management / New plan for Impact.

There is a wave of optimism fanfare and general excitement and kerfuffle as the management launch its new strategy. This strategy portrays a brave new world. The organisation will change direction. All the problems that plague the organisation will magically disappear. We will all get together to pursue brand new innovations such as AI to address the current problems. Bring in ‘new customers’, or in the public sector create ‘productivity savings’, ‘address variance’ or ‘inequalities’. All whilst keeping the best things about the organisation of the past, but doing so with less cost and more ‘efficiently’.

Common Planning Mistakes that Triggers the Planning Stress Cycle.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a strategy and a plan. The problems usually comes from:

1. Assuming that we fully understand the organisation as it really is now.
2. Assuming we can predict the future using logic alone. (The future is not logical)
3. Not giving the people at the frontline the flexibility to adapt the plans to match their reality.

The biggest mistake that triggers these cycles, is that there are usually top-down solutions. This is very characteristic of the of the bureaucratic approach to change management. There is little to no consultation with users and frontline service staff (as these staff are considered ‘the costs’). If people have not been consulted, how then is it possible to identify and address the problems of staff and customers on the frontline? How do you know what is possible on the frontline and what is not? Yet one of the defining characteristics of many planned changes is a lack of consultation until after a decision has been made.

Planning Changes and Large Consultancies.

It’s important to mention there this is the approach actively promoted by many large consultancies, whose entire business models, are little more than copying and pasting plans from one organisation to the next. (Calling it ‘industry best practice’). To be implemented from the top down.  

Beware, these consultancies make money from producing the plans, not from their success. When the plans fails they tell you that it was because it wasn’t implemented properly. Of course they can help if you can give them some more money to create a new plan.

These plans will usually come with the idea the plans will happen to everyone everywhere almost instantaneously. Which leads us to stage 2.

Planning Stress Cycle Stage 2. New Targets for Impact

Setting targets for change is the next step in the bureaucratic approach to change. In order to roll out and simplify things and prove that something is happening, the most important thing the plan does is set targets. (Key Performance Indicators -KPIs). These targets often explicitly ignore the personal and social impact of the change. (If you can’t measure it, it doesn’t count)

Each department within the organisation must then submit its plans on how these wonderful new targets are to be achieved. There is usually little or no conversation about whether these targets our what customers or staff actually want or need. Often these will be formal projects or cost reduction plans and efficiency savings.

Common Measurement Mistake: The Goals of the Targets Vary from the Intended Outcome of the Strategy.

There is often a disconnect in the targets of the strategy and the intended outcomes and transformation. Either because the targets are reduced down to easily understood short term goals, organisational politics, or some things are just easy to measure.

Typically outcomes will be redefined as activity measures. The bureaucratic approach to change is typically to view actions as results. A very common mistake is that targets are often decided looking at spreadsheets alone, rather than consulting with people who generate the data on what the numbers actually mean. Leading to the ubiquitous data interpretation problems later.

The Shock of New Targets.

As the bureaucratic approach to change means that any changes to targets agreed upwards, then cascaded down. These new targets can often be a disorientating shock to those on the frontline. Often this will involve the collection of new data and submission of KPI reports on top of their workload. Some frontline staff will be made redundant as their function is deemed no longer necessary for the future of the organisation. (cost savings). Whilst the conversations about what things count of what start and will likely be reinterpreted several times over the course of the initiative. Distracting from the intended outcomes of the initiative.

Planning Stress Cycle Stage 3. New controls For Impact

The new plan will require changes throughout the organisation. But the bureaucratic approach to change dictates new controls are necessary to make sure that people will change to ‘deliver the plan’. New processes are made. New rules will then be necessary to ensure that people follow the process.

Project plans will be demanded and made. It will mean new reports to show progress. There will be milestones and actions. New meetings will be put in place. There will be restructuring. These are all the hallmarks of the bureaucratic approach to change: Documents and processes over people.

For the frontline and customers, this is often a time of great confusion as old processes are abruptly discontinued. People are thrust into unfamiliar new roles, in which they have little experience. Nonetheless this is a time of great excitement. Things are happening and things are being done. The negative social impacts are still there, if unstated. The action and energy has the palliative affect of masking the negative social impact, for now.

Common Controls Mistakes

When we add work we also need to take some away. Too often a change is in addition to without given space to grow. Anything new will require additional thought and effort (Daniel Kahnemann’s system 2 thinking) than the old process that everyone is used (System 1)

The other big mistake of the bureaucratic approach to change is controls should only be necessary and sufficient. Too much control stops people thinking for themselves adapting and learning. They will be unable to use their expertise to stop your internal processes breaking and letting down customers. You don’t want people making mistakes or feeling unsure what to do, but at the same time you do need them to consider and establish new practices.

Planning Stress Cycle Stage 4. Unmet Need, Social Impact and Workarounds.

The consequences of these changes will usually be users who are left behind with unmet needs. The negative social impact of the bureaucratic approach to change will become apparent. This may be because of the discontinuation of existing services. Or it may be that they are new customers, but the new processes don’t take into account their real-life needs. Bedding in changes takes time as frontline staff doesn’t have the experience of managing customers with the new processes.

To avoid disappointing the customers and mitigate the negative social impact, this is usually the time of workarounds. Often these are intended to be short-term fixes. Some of the old processes may be secretly maintained to keep things working. Staff may often also stick to the familiar and proven reliable old ways of working. (If ain’t broke don’t fix it) New solutions are also added to fix ongoing problems. This is all to minimise the stress of unhappy service users.

Nonetheless a number of users who don’t fit into the new processes will be put off when they need help or come back later with more problems. This is the concept of John Seddon termed failure demand. Where people come back around again and again because their needs have not been met, creating demand.

Mistakes: Why Do We Suddenly Have A Spike in Unmet Need.

The biggest and most common mistake in putting in controls is that the ‘old way’ of doing things was fully known and understood. However, there is a difference between work as described and work as done, people may have put in place adjustments and workarounds that mean that the old ways had some usefulness. People vary, a lot and one size fit processes are certain not to fit some people. If you don’t understand this you are 100% likely to break things when you change things. 

Planning Stress Cycle Stage 5. Assurance and Compliance To Make Sure the Impact Happens.

The bureaucratic approach to change management then starts to add ‘assurance processes’. Often they were never part of ‘The Plan’, but always seem to appear in bureaucratic organisations regardless. This is to check the ‘lower’ people are doing what they are told.

The pressure is on. ‘Deliver, deliver, deliver’: management need to be confident things are on track to their plan (They won’t be). They want middle management to set new targets and take action. They will meet with them repeatedly and ‘red flag’ things until they do it.

Of course this is necessary as people in reality are doing workarounds to keep the company running and customers and service users happy. The old processes die hard because they are tested and proven and work. The same can not be said of the new processes which will usually have been created using averages and a red-amber-green spreadsheet.

What’s Wrong With Assurance & Compliance?

The bureaucratic approach to change management is widespread. Tracking whether people are doing something can become a real industry. Making reports for other people to do, reporting, setting future plans, forecasting making risk assessments, making business cases for changes, and creating new targets. Because these people control the budgets this is the main thing that gets funded. In the public sector, whole organisations can spend all their time doing nothing else.

For many organisations this seems to be the main communication between senior and middle management. Yet, very little of this activity has any real benefit to the user. It maintains its power by claiming front-line staff are not complying with the plan and that there is ‘unwarranted variation’. (As if humans need permission to vary) There is nothing wrong with the plan what is needed is better compliance.

Planning Stress Cycle Stage 6 Performance Management.

Due to the aforementioned lack of compliance and slow uptake of the new processes. As well as unwarranted variation individual enforcement is required.  The bureaucratic approach to change management dictates this is when the plan is put into people’s performance objectives. Blame is attributed to individual people, not the system or the plan. Any negative social impact is attributed to people’s failure. Not the plan.

Streetwise managers delegate responsibility and therefore, blame to their team. Frontline staff are given ever more controls and checks to confirm they are complying with the process. Even when uptake of the new processes is high (e.g. above 80%) targets are raised. Considerable time and effort is spent dealing with the underperformers.

This is also the time that demand failure is really starting to bite. With increasing compliance and inflexibility of process. The fact that many users are not average creates a whole new demand stream. Lots of exceptions and clauses are added to ‘The Plan’. How data is collected and defined becomes a key focus. That means that staff are now starting to feel overwhelmed. Those that switched to the new process feel rushed off their feet.

Performance Management Mistakes 

Performance Management is W E Deming’s 3rd deadly disease of management. Which Deming describes as management by fear. “Sound’s great. Can’t be done.” “The effect is devastating”, “The system nourishes short term thinking”. “It annihilates teamwork.” It seems impossible to argue against any of these things. By focusing on blaming individuals you are destroying engagement and the love of your company in your staff and rewarding slavish compliance and followership over thinking, learning and growth.

Planning Stress Cycle Stage 7. Fire Fighting.

The bureaucratic approach to change management failed at this point. As meeting the targets and user demand is direct conflict. The targets have really started to slip now. The user demand is going through the roof. (Because of unmet need) Staff are stressed and tired. There is often conflict due to meeting the demands of customers and achieving targets.

The management has started to recognise issues at all levels. Interventions are devised, sometimes on a daily basis. Projects will get stuck as everyone is too busy and there is no spare resource. Assurance processes escalate with considerable management time, but with no effect.

Contradictory instructions are given out. Often there will be a high change over of staff. There is no telling how long this stage will last. Sometimes it can be years if the interventions do just enough to paper over the cracks temporarily. Demand from users is high, so in some ways, this feels like an exciting time of high productivity. Even if the KPIs aren’t great. There is no shortage of demand. However, inefficiencies and cost will gradually accumulate over time. The negative social impacts of the change will have to go somewhere. The organisation will have a poor user experience and its reputation will diminish. Rivals will steal your unhappy customers and staff. In the public sector even the government has noticed something is wrong.

Firefighting Mistakes

The sense of perma-crisis in many organisations, can feel busy and exhilarating, but this work is often a long way from creating genuine value for your customers. Very often it is the squeaky wheel getting fixed and the things that are working that have to be the potential for the future of the organisation often stand neglected. At this stage, Peter is often robbed to pay Paul.

Planning Stress Cycle Stage 8 System Failure. Bang!!

Whilst the previous stage of fire fighting can last a long period of time. This process can happen very quickly. Often a small change will be the final straw. A rivals new product, a key staff member leaving. A bill not paid. A government cut. A flu outbreak. A news report. However, it happens a tipping point will be reached. The resources going into the system lose any understandable relationship with the outcomes going out. Stressed staff make mistakes that should never happen. There are contradictory processes within the organisation. Silos in the organisation are in open warfare.

There is general agreement in the bureaucracy that the plan has failed, or ‘needs updating’ or more often than not the organisation has developed selective amnesia about the plan. Many organisations don’t survive the crisis or those that do suddenly find that other services have filled the gap they used to. The user has gone elsewhere, and maybe the staff too. The remaining staff are stressed out and bewildered.

Well, it’s time for a new plan. That’ll fix things. Everyone is stressed out, new leadership and a new plan what will fix the problem.

Recognising the Problems with the Bureaucratic Approach to Change

By trying to illustrate the problems with the bureaucratic approach to change and the cycle of stress that associated with it, we can recognise there’s a problem and we need to think and act differently. When you are in the action adrenaline and stress can be overwhelming. Like an addict, the excitement hides the costs to us in the longer term. 

How Can Leaders and Decision Makers Break the Bureaucratic Planning Stress Cycle?

Planning Stress Cycle Solution 1. Empower Frontline Managers

Another effective solution to counter the bureaucratic approach to change and the Planning Stress Cycle involves empowering frontline managers. Give the frontline managers the autonomy and agency to recognise and adapt to the problems they encounter in real time. By equipping these key individuals with the necessary tools, authority, and support, organisations can foster a more agile and responsive environment. Indeed this is exactly how Toyota has been so successful in quality improvement. Basing their approach on empowering small front line teams to learn and adapt to the problems they see.

Frontline managers, being closest to the operational challenges and customer interactions, possess unique insights into the immediate needs and potential solutions that can address issues effectively. Granting them the leeway to make decisions and implement changes not only accelerates problem resolution but also boosts morale and engagement by valuing their expertise and judgment. This approach promotes a culture of trust and accountability, where frontline managers are empowered to act as agents of change, leading to a more resilient and adaptive organization.

Planning Stress Cycle Solution 2. Implement Polarity Management

Whilst the bureacratic approach to change management and the accompanying stress cycle is common it is not inevitable. Polarity Management by Barry Johnston offers a great way to take a different route. You can read my guide to polarity management here. Polarity Management recognises that many topics have tradeoffs or polarity. Interconnected issues where overextension on one polarity is best addressed by taking action to move towards the other polarity. e.g. by balancing exercise is rest. If we can see our organisations more as balancing tradeoffs, rather than constantly making handbrake turns to survive we can better manage the negative aspects of change. By taking a more nuanced balanced approach to decision making we can avoid being succeed into these stressful cycles of behaviour.

How Can You Implement Polarity Management to Counter the Planning Stress Cycle

Here is an implementation plan to introduce Polarity Management as a strategy to counter the bureaucratic approach to change and the Planning Stress Cycle. I would strongly suggest starting at a small scale. Test and learn how to get polarity management well collect evidence to demonstrate it’s effectiveness before scaling up.

I would also strongly suggest starting with frontline leaders and working your way up the organisation, rather than start at the top. In my experience most senior managers love their simplicity, so you will have to convince them with evidence.

1. Training and Support for Frontline Staff
   • Provide comprehensive training on Polarity Management, including identification and management of polarities.
   • Offer ongoing support through coaching sessions.
2. Define Pilot Parameters
   • Set clear objectives, polarities to manage, expected outcomes, and timeframe.
   • Ensure all participants understand the pilot’s scope. Create clear limits on what can and can’t be done.
3. Establish Measurements
   • Identify measures for polarities
   • Establish trigger points for changing focus.
4. Implementation by Frontline Leaders
   • Leaders apply Polarity Management strategies to daily challenges, using tools like polarity maps for team collaboration.
   • Encourage open discussion and collaborative problem-solving.
5. Data Collection and Feedback
   • Collect quantitative data (performance metrics) and qualitative data (team feedback) throughout the pilot.
   • Conduct regular check-ins and surveys for ongoing insights.
6. Documentation and Adaptation
   • Document observations, challenges, and strategy adjustments.
   • Hold debrief sessions for teams to share experiences and adapt approaches.
7. Evaluation
   • Assess pilot outcomes against success criteria and identify areas for improvement.
   • Highlight effective strategies and unexpected insights.

Expected Outcomes

• Practical insights into Polarity Management application and effectiveness.
• Engaged frontline leaders with enhanced problem-solving skills.
• Data-driven foundation for broader implementation.

Conclusion

The bureaucratic approach to change and the planning stress cycle seems to be happening everywhere all at once as organisations are addicted to constant rounds of change management. It is a trap the politics of many organisations fall into. Bureaucracies have a habit of creeping into all organisations as they grow. Having a series of simple problems It explains why we are so busy, but so often it feels like we are treading water. By recognising what keeps us locked in we can start to make changes that will help us move forwards to a better world together.

• Do you recognise this pattern in your organisation?
• Now that you recognise it is there something you can do to address it?