The Amoeba and Change Management

Change is the need of the hour:

Change is inevitable. Change is the norm of the day. The first lessons I learnt when I attended a class on ‘Change Management’ was that organizations have to be amoebic. My professor explained to me that the word Amoeba was derived from Greek and denoted “to change”. An Amoeba is a unicellular organism which moves by continually changing its body shape and forming extensions called pseudo pods (false feet). It can live almost anywhere because of its simple structure. The idea of an Amoeba that can change so easily has always stuck with me. It is very relevant to organizations facing turbulent competition which are under constant pressure to adapt and change. They need to be ‘Amoebic’.

In this discussion we will compare organizations on their relative flexibility and their capability to change. We will refer the more flexible ones as ‘Amoebic organizations’.

Amoebic Organizations:

Amoebic organizations as explained above have an advantage of flexibility over Non-Amoebic organizations. They have a fairly good sense of what to expect and how to manage their operations to meet those expectations. They often do competitive research, debate new ideas, and have a clear understanding of what they want to do and how to get there. These organizations are the harbinger of innovation and seek out flexibility to improve their chances of success. The Management of Change in such organizations is a natural process and is, by far, easily imbibed in the corporate culture.

Non-Amoebic Organizations:

At the other end are the organizations that are less receptive and less susceptible to change. While both Amoebic and Non-Amoebic organizations are aware of competitors and do similar environmental analysis yet the structures of Non-Amoebic organizations do not allow free flow of ideas, experimentation or innovation. These organizations are bureaucratic and often find it difficult to deal with changes in policy and execution. Even though there is nothing wrong in the way they function yet when it boils down to who adopts change first, it is not them!!

Is complexity key?

This debate is not about the size or scale of organizations and does not dismiss larger organizations merely on the pretext of complexity. Rather the central idea is to think in terms of bringing flexibility to the work ethos and strive for excellent performance irrespective of scale. After all, we must remember that all business organizations function towards an economic goal and introducing change makes sense only when it is economically viable.

The growth of “Matrix” and “Project” organizational structures is a good example of ‘flexibility’ which traditional organizational structures failed to offer.  People now work across various functions cut across lines of command, share ideas and initiate innovation. The Human Resource person is no longer restricted to his own functional area. Instead, he works with people from Operations, Marketing, IT, Planning, Finance, etc. and gets involved in the whole story rather than just one slice of the organization. This is a big development in how organizations have changed in contrast to the traditional, hierarchical structures.

How to strike a balance?

There is no need to have firms at either extreme mentioned above. Instead, organizations should strive to be somewhere in the comfortable middle. This can be explained on the following grounds.

Firstly, each organization has its own unique needs and this varies from industry to industry. The technology needs of a mining company will be different from those of a health care company. A fishing company may or may not have the need for as  high a level of sophistication as a software development company.

Secondly, flexibility has to be understood on the grounds of a cost-benefit analysis. How much does it cost to be flexible in terms of future benefits or returns? Is it a win-win situation?

Thirdly, organizations should watch before they leap on the ‘Amoebic Trail’! Flexibility does not always guarantee success and each organization must know its own strengths and weaknesses in order to improvise. The ideal balance when managing change is to capitalize on the strengths and underscore weaknesses.

Lastly, an aptitude for change is always good as it makes the process of change easier. When change is inevitable, you should not be rigid in your attitude. If you are rigid, you cannot be Amoebic. If you are not Amoebic, how will you survive turbulent changes?

Interested to enroll at our Six Sigma training courses near you? Get more information on our courses or services, please click here: www.6sigma.com/course-schedule-and-registration/.