It occurred to me that New Lanchester Strategy, being originally a military strategy about force concentration applied to market share in sales and marketing, might also be applied to organisational change.
Should we expect that there would be different effective strategies for organisational change depending on whether we are in a position of strength vs weakness?
Strength in New Lanchester Strategy refers to numerical strength. In our case, instead of troop numbers or market share, I propose that strength in the organisational change context is about mind share, that is, how many people desire the new idea and/or behaviour you are trying to introduce.
Note that mind share does not mean that the individuals are skilled in executing the idea or behaviour, just as desiring and buying a product or service does not mean that you are skilled at using it. So I'm also proposing that we distinguish acquisition of mind share from development of capability.
You are in a position of strength when your mind share is dominant, that is, 3 times greater in mind share in a one-on-one situation, and √3 greater in mind share when there are multiple competing ideas. You are in a position of weakness when your mind share is not dominant.
As with New Lanchester Strategy market share targets, the maximum target mind share is ~70%, the leading idea only requires ~40% (assuming 3 or more competing ideas), and at least ~25% is required to maintain a stable presence in the organisation.
In New Lanchester Strategy, there is a principle about prioritising attacks on the weak and on weak points. This refers to building market share by taking it from weaker competitors and by attacking the weak aspects of stronger competitors. With organisational change, you can similarly build mind share by absorbing supporters of weaker ideas and emphasising the weak aspects of the dominant idea.
The weaker idea should never engage in open, wide-ranging confrontation with the stronger idea. Instead, the weak should focus on local battles and close combat.
Local battles for organisational change are about identifying and targeting isolatable and winnable segments within the organisation that can be defended. For example, some possibilities might be a single person, a single team, a single function, a single business unit, etc. as long as they generally have authority to independently decide on their own approaches.
Close combat for organisational change is about staying close to your allies and using a personal touch. If you have a sponsor, focus first on his / her direct sphere of authority and influence. Win there before expanding elsewhere. Focus primarily on engaging people directly face-to-face and personally over potentially sterile, official communication channels.
Beyond New Lanchester Strategy, we should also consider concepts from diffusion of innovations. When in a position of weakness, target Innovators and Early Adopters as the first defendable segments and exploit opinion leadership and mind share to convert the majority / mainstream. To be clear, when in a position of weakness, don't start by trying to directly convince the mainstream or laggards.
The strategy changes when you get into a position of strength. The stronger idea should engage in the open, go after the mainstream, and publicise widely. That is, when in a position of strength, you want to exploit all the official communication channels, modify official policies and structures, provide official training, change official incentives, etc.
I want to end this on an important point.
Mind share strategy is about competing ideas within people's heads; it is not about competing people. Someone who doesn't currently support your idea or target behaviour is not the enemy / competitor, the alternate idea or behaviour is.
No comments:
Post a Comment