QSM: Volume 4.1: Becoming a Change Artist

Part I. 변화가 실제로 어떻게 일어나는지 모델링하기 (Modeling How Change Really Happens)

Chapter 1. 몇몇 익숙한 변화 모델들 (Some Familiar Change Models)

Summary

1. 소프트웨어 조직을 변경하려는 시도는 대개 부적절한 변화 다이나믹스 모델로 인해 실패한다. Attempts to change software organizations commonly fail because of inadequate models of change dynamics.

2. 확산 모델은 모든 변화 모델 중 가장 단순하며 염료가 용액으로 확산되는 것처럼 조직으로 확산됨으로써 변화가 발생한다는 믿음을 기반으로 한다. The Diffusion Model is the simplest of all the change models and is based on the belief that change just happens by diffusing into the organization like dye diffuses into solution.

3. 확산 모델에 대한 약간 더 정교한 관점은 변화의 확산이 구조를 가지고 있음을 인식한다. 이 구조에서 변수를 제어하면 확산을 제한적으로 관리할 수 있다. A slightly more sophisticated view of the Diffusion Model recognizes that the diffusion of a change does have structure. If we control the variables in this structure, we can manage diffusion to a limited extent.

4. 확산 모델의 강점은 그것의 프로세스로서의 변화에 대한 관심이다. (반면에) 약점은, 자연의 힘에 대한 그 과정에 대한 통제권을 포기하는 것이다. The strength of the Diffusion Model is its attention to change as a process. The weakness is the abdication of control over that process to forces of nature.

5. '바닥에 구멍 모델' 또는 '엔지니어링 모델'은 변경 프로세스에 대한 제어를 추가하여 확산 모델의 약점을 교정하려고 한다. 이 제어에는 세 단계가 포함된다. The Hole-in-the-Floor, or Engineering, Model attempts to correct the weakness of the Diffusion Model by adding control of the change process. This control involves three steps:

   1. 위층에서 일하면서, 엔지니어들은 완벽한 시스템을 개발한다. Working upstairs, the engineers develop the perfect system.

   2. 변경 계획은 바닥에 구멍을 뚫는 것으로 구성된다. The change plan consists of drilling a hole in the floor.

   3. 시스템은 구멍을 통해 떨어지고 작업자들은 그것을 행복하게 사용한다 - 그것이 즉시 확산된 이후에. The system is dropped through the hole and the workers use it happily ever after—instant diffusion.

6. '바닥에 구멍 모델'은 사람의 본질에 대한 여러 가지 잘못된 가정을 하지만, 충분히 높은 수준에서 보면 변화에 대한 데이터에 적합하다. 도로의 측면을 변경해야 하는 그러한 몇 번의 경우, 가능한 한 '바닥에 구멍 모델'에 가깝게 변경하도록 노력해야 한다. The Hole-in-the-Floor Model is based on a number of false assumptions about the nature of people, but often fits the data on change if viewed from a sufficiently high level. Those few times when we must change the side of the road, we need to try to make change approximate the Hole-in-the-Floor Model as closely as possible.

7. '바닥에 구멍 모델'의 강점은 계획에 대한 강조이다. 이 모델에서 약한 점은 계획에 많은 필수 요소, 특히 인적 요소가 빠져 있다는 것이다. The strength of the Hole-in-the-Floor Model is the emphasis on planning. What's weak in the model is that the planning leaves out so many essential factors, most notably the human factor.

8. 뉴턴 모델 (또는 동기부여 모델)은 변화에 대한 외부 동기의 개념을 소개하고, 다음과 같이 말한다 The Newtonian Model (or Motivational Model) introduces the concept of external motivation to change, and says

   • 변경하려는 시스템이 클수록 더 세게 밀어야 한다. The bigger the system you want to change, the harder you must push.

   • 원하는 변화가 빠를수록 더 세게 밀어야 한다. The faster the change you want, the harder you must push.

   • 특정 방향으로 변경하려면 해당 방향으로 밀어야 한다. To change in a certain direction, you must push in that direction.

9. 뉴턴 모델은 다음과 같이 생각한다: 사람들은 자신이 하는 일에 대한 선택권이 있고, 변화 과정의 일부로서 밀어붙임으로써 그들의 선택에 영향을 줄 수 있다. (그러나) 사람들은 뉴턴 모델이 암시하는 것만큼 단순하지 않기 때문에, 밀어붙이는 것은 종종 부메랑 효과를 만들어낸다. The Newtonian Model does recognize that people have a choice in what they do, and that their choice can be influenced by pushing them as part of the change process. It fails to recognize that people are not nearly as simple as the Newtonian Model implies, so that pushing often produces a boomerang effect.

10. 간단한 뉴턴 모델의 유용한 개선 중 하나는 사회심리학자들이 역장 분석(field analysis)이라고 부르는 것이다. 이 방법은 다이어그램의 한쪽에는 변화에 대한 모든 힘을 나열하고 다른 쪽에는 변화에 반대하는 힘을 나열한 다음, 균형을 이동하는 방법을 찾는 것이다. One useful refinement of the simple Newtonian Model is what social psychologists call force field analysis, a method that is based on listing all forces for change on one side of a diagram and against change on the other, then looking for ways of shifting the balance.

11. 뉴턴 모델의 강점은 동기의 형태로 인간 요소를 명시적으로 도입한 것이다. 그것의 약점은 사용되는 인간 모델이 완전히 부적절하다는 것이다. The strength of the Newtonian Model is the explicit introduction of the human element in the form of motivation. Its weakness is the totally inadequate model of humanity that's used: that people can be pushed around like billiard balls.

12. 학습 곡선 모델은 사람들이 당구공이 아니며, 일반적으로 사람들이 당구공과 같은 변화 시도에 즉각적인 효율ㄹ성으로 반응할 수 없다고 생각한다. 또한 계획자가 희망하는 것만큼 대응하는 법을 배우는데 시간이 걸린다. The Learning Curve Model recognizes that people aren't billiard balls, and that people are usually unable to respond to change attempts like a billiard ball with instant efficiency. Moreover, it takes time to learn to respond as well as the planners would hope.

13. 학습 곡선 모델은 인력 선발과 훈련을 통해 변화 과정에 영향을 미칠 가능성을 제시하며 대규모 계획에 매우 유용하다. 그러나 실제 조직에서 개인별로 문화 변화를 관리하기 위한 실용적인 도구로는 실패한다. The Learning Curve Model suggests the possibility of influencing the course of the change by personnel selection and training and is quite useful for large- scale planning. However, it fails as as a practical tool for managing cultural change person-by-person in a real organization.

14. 학습 곡선 모델의 강점은 적응적인 인간 요소를 변화에 통합하는 것이다. 약점은 개별 인간의 세부 사항을 평균화하는 것이다. The strength of the Learning Curve Model is its incorporation of the adaptive human element in change. The weakness is the averaging out of details of individual human beings.

Chapter 2. 사티어 변화 모델 (The Satir Change Model)

Summary

1. 변화를 효과적으로 관리하려면 감정적 반응을 이해해야 한다. 변화가 어떻게 일어나는지에 대한 VirginiaSatir의 모델은 개인 뿐만 아니라 개인 시스템에도 적용되며, 정서적 요인을 확실히 통합한다. To manage change effectively, you must understand emotional reactions. Virginia Satir's model of how change takes place applies to individuals as well as to systems of individuals, and definitely incorporates the emotional factor.

2. SatirChangeModel은 변화가 다음과 같은 네 가지 주요 단계로 발생한다고 말한다 The Satir Change Model says that change takes place in four major stages, called:

   1. 후기 평형상태, 혹은 오랜 평형상태 Late Status Quo, or Old Status Quo

   2. 혼돈 Chaos

   3. 통합과 연습 Integration and Practice

   4. 새 평형상태 New Status Quo

   5. 이 모델은 또한 우리가 변화하려는 방식을 변화하는 더 높은 수준의 변화, 또는 메타 변화를 설명한다. The model also describes a higher level of change, or meta-change, which involves changing the way we change.

3. 후기 평형 상태는 시스템의 모든 출력을 제어하려는 일련의 시도의 논리적 결과물이다. 모든 것이 익숙하고 균형을 이루지만, 시스템의 여러 부분이 균형을 유지하는데 있어 불평등한 역할을 한다. The Late Status Quo is the logical outcome of a series of attempts to get all the outputs of the system under control. Everything is familiar and in balance, but various parts of the system have an unequal role in maintaining that balance.

4. 후기 평형 상태 단계는 소위 위기에 앞서 항상 건강이 좋지 않은 상태이다. SatirChangeModel은 위기가 갑작스런 사건이 아니라, - 위기가 아니라 - 환상의 끝인, 오랫동안 건강이 좋지 않은 상태에 있었다는 것을 갑작스럽게 깨닫는 것이라고 생각한다. The Late Status Quo stage is a state of ill health that always precedes the so-called crisis. The Satir Change Model recognizes that the crisis is not a sudden event, but merely the sudden realization that things have been unhealthy for a long time—not a crisis, but the end of an illusion.

5. 후기 평형 상태에서는, 사람들이 불안, 일반화된 신경증 및 위장 문제를 경험할 수 있다. 변비는 창의성 감각이 없는 혁신의 후기 현상을 특징인 과도한 통제에 대한 완벽한 메타포이다. 시스템이 후기 평형 상태에 있다는 가장 중요한 신호는 거부이다: 다른 모든 증상을 인식하지 못하거나 기꺼워하지 않는 것, 아무 일에도 충분한 중요성을 부여하지 않는 것이다. In the Late Status Quo, people may be experiencing anxiety, generalized nervousness, and gastrointestinal problems. Constipation is a perfect metaphor for the over-control that characterizes the Late Status Quo, where there is no sense of creativity, of innovation. The most important sign that the system is in Late Status Quo is denial: the inability or unwillingness to recognize all the other symptoms, or to attach enough significance to them to do anything.

6. Systems stay in Late Status Quo until something happens that the people in the systems can no longer deny—a condition Satir calls the foreign element. The system usually tries—and often succeeds—to expel the foreign element and return to the Late Status Quo because familiarity is always more powerful than comfort.
7. When a foreign element arrives, people become protective and defensive. Still, the foreign element may be the only thing that arouses any kind of new activity, but most of that is simply trying to expel the foreign element.
8. Eventually, some foreign element cannot be denied or deferred or deflected, and the system goes into Chaos, where old predictions no longer work. The Old Status Quo system has been disrupted.
9. People try random behavior and desperately seek sweeping, magical solutions, to restore the Old Status Quo. It may not be easy for people in Chaos to acknowledge it's happening to them. They feel crazy, afraid, and vulnerable; and they become extremely defensive and alienated.
10. When in Chaos, people encounter people they've never seen before, and functions they never knew existed. Some startling new ideas may emerge, but if they work at all, they only work for a short time.
11. Eventually, one of these new ideas seems a real possibility. This is the transforming idea—the "AHA!" that starts the Integration and Practice phase. Chaotic feelings disappear, and at moments of apparent clarity, everything looks like it will be solved. However, the moments of clarity are often replaced by old feelings of doubt, as feelings swing back and forth.
12. During Integration and Practice, people feel good, but feel unable to control the good feeling. They are easily disappointed when things don't work out perfectly the first time, and need much support, though they may not seek it explicitly.
13. A major component of the good feeling is the "Aha" rush that often comes with the transforming idea. The memory of this rush is so strong, though, that the practice needed to integrate the transforming idea is often forgotten.
14. Successful practice eventually leads to a New Status Quo stage. Unfamiliar things become familiar, and a new set of expectations and predictions evolves. People are calm, balanced, and have a sense of accomplishment. But, unless they take charge of the change process, the newness of the New Status Quo wears off, and we drift into another Old Status Quo Stage.

Chapter 3. 변화에 대한 응답들 (Responses to Change)

Summary

1. According to the Satir Change Model, the change process contains many choice points—points at which the individual or organization can respond in one of several ways:
   • The foreign element can be rejected, or not rejected.
   • The foreign element can be accommodated into the old model of reality.
   • The old model can be transformed to receive the foreign element.
   • The transformation can be integrated or not integrated into the model.
   • The transformed model can be mastered or not mastered through practice.
   • In addition, there is the choice of how much time should pass before the explicit introduction of a new foreign element.
2. When management announces a change, many employees will perceive the announcement as a foreign element and attempt to reject it. The first step in dealing with these rejections is to realize that opposition to a foreign element is perfectly natural, and not a personal attack. Then listen to the sense of each argument and, more importantly, to the emotional "music" behind it. Responding to the emotions will generally be more successful than trying to counter the arguments.
3. Other people may resort to accommodating the foreign element into their old model, and truly believe they are doing the change. A good strategy here is to be tactful yet explicit in what truly needs to be done to accomplish the change.
4. A good strategy when introducing change is to emphasize how the changed state resembles what is already being done. Instead, some people introducing change emphasize how everything is entirely new and different. To be successful at change, you need to show people that they really have a vast amount of knowledge so that the change is only a small, logical increment to their knowledge base.
5. The introduction of a change often fails at the point where the new way must be integrated into practice. In training, real examples give the most effective practice, especially if the environment makes it safe to make mistakes and to go at whatever speed is needed to integrate the new material. And practice doesn't end when classes end; the introduction of new ideas to the actual job needs lots of safety and support from experienced people.
6. Once the change has been integrated into a few working examples, a return to Chaos becomes far less likely—but still possible if conditions are bad enough. Lots of petty adjustments are required to make any real change work in practice, and lots of time must be allowed for scaling-up from small examples.

7. Perhaps the most common cause of failing to change is the question of timing—the interference from other changes. Changes do not come in isolation, and McLyman's Zone Theory is an excellent guide to timing the introduction of new foreign elements, based on zones.

8. The Red Zone is the interval of time before a previous foreign element is transformed, accommodated, or rejected. When a new foreign element arrives while the system is in the Red Zone, Chaos from both foreign elements increases. Moreover, the chance of ever finding a transformation for either foreign element decreases, and the likelihood of rejection or accommodation increases.
9. The Yellow Zone is the time during which a previous transformation is still being integrated. When a new foreign element arrives while the system is in the Yellow Zone, chances of successful change are reduced, but not as seriously as with Red Zone foreign elements. With successive Yellow Zone foreign elements, however, the system builds an energy debt. Successful change becomes progressively less likely, and productivity drags.
10. The Green Zone is the time between late Integration and early New Status Quo. When a foreign element arrives in the Green Zone, the system's chances of successful change are maximized. Not only is there no energy debt, but each successful Green Zone change increases the chances for the next.
11. The Gray Zone is all the time after system has been in Late Status Quo for a while. When a foreign element arrives in the Gray Zone, people have lost some of their meta-change skills, for old learnings about change have lost their usefulness. Without these meta-change skills, change is once again slow and difficult, and the chance of successful change is lowered.
12. Managers who are in a hurry and press the organization with too many changes too quickly will merely slow down the very changes they are trying to accelerate. Similarly, if managers adopt the strategy of "hit them with a lot of changes, and some will stick," they'll find that in the end, none of them will stick.
13. Not all parts of the system are in the same zone at the same time. This is true at every level of the organization, right down to the individual. Although change must be managed at a high level, we must never ignore the impact on individuals.
14. Change tends to disrupt information flow needed to manage change. The most reliable information is the emotional signals from the people experiencing the change. Use these signals to determine the appropriate zone strategy, or what kind of information you need to supply.
15. During an aging Status Quo, old feedback mechanisms are eroding slowly. Information is not getting through. Behavior is less predictable, and to make it more predictable, people often ignore what information does get through. Interventions here should be in the direction of getting people to recognize what is, rather than what it is supposed to be.
16. For major changes, the system may go through the change model many times. Not only do systems and individuals learn during the change cycle, but after several complete change cycles, they "learn to learn"—and they also learn about the importance of learning in a change process. Experienced change artists feel such high self-worth and unlimited coping ability that they are able to deal in a truly helpful way with those to whom the prospect of change is a threat.

Part II. 에상하는 조직?에서의 변화 예술가들 (Change Artistry in the Anticipating Organization)

Chapter 4. 변화 예술가 (Change Artistry)

Summary

1. Whenever we look into organizations that have accomplished cultural changes, we find a large number of people who we call change artists. Moreover, we find these change artists at all levels of an organization, and in all units, because for cultural change to occur, it must occur at all levels and all units. When these change artists are present, they deal with the individual emotional responses to change, and thus increase the chances for success of any change plan.
2. In the Anticipating organization, to some degree everybody has become a change artist, Thus, the devotion to developing change artistry is one of the distinguishing marks of this cultural pattern, and the primary tool for change is neither things nor procedures, but people.
3. Change artistry consists of knowing how to facilitate change, knowing what to change, when to change it, where in the organization the change should be introduced, and who should take what roles in carrying it out. Even more, it consists of the ability to take congruent action when under great stress, and surrounded by people under stress.
4. There is no single way to be a change artist, and different ones are needed for different jobs. The important thing is to have a change artist in the right place at the right time to facilitate each little piece of the grand plan.
5. Each stage of change is different, and each stage requires different types of intervention. Fully matured change artists are able to operate well in all phases: Old Status Quo, Chaos, Integration and Practice, and New Status Quo. Some change artists, however, are primarily effective at only one stage, simply because it happens to match their skills and personalities.
6. The NT Visionary likes working with ideas and is most interested in designing, rather than implementing, change. The NF Catalyst enjoys working with people to help them grow, and is best at keeping people working together through the rough spots of the change process. The SJ Organizer, who likes order and system, is best at carrying the transformation into actual practice, long after the visionaries have gotten bored. The SP Troubleshooter likes getting the job done and is least likely to deny the foreign element, because it offers an opportunity to swing into action.
7. The temperaments are merely tendencies: what we may do instinctively when we act without thinking. More fully developed change artists recognize their tendencies, honor them for their strengths, note their weaknesses, and set them aside if they are inappropriate for the current situation.
8. Without careful management, long-term change is invariably sacrificed to short-term expedience. Such expedience takes place all the time, everywhere in the organization, essentially out of the view of the high-level management. That's why change artists have to be in every nook and cranny of an organization.
9. The act of patching violates standard process, and so encourages further process violations over time. Though the patch maintains stability in one area, it is a foreign element in several others. Change artists in Anticipating organizations evolve a process to resolve this conflict, such as a QUEST team consisting of a hacker responsible for solving the immediate problem, a guardian responsible for seeing that no harm comes to the product, and a healer responsible for amending the process to prevent further occurrences, or to be prepared to handle them better.
10. Perhaps the toughest skill for a change artist to learn is the skill of knowing what people and what situations to leave alone. Change artists need to learn how to recognize whether a person or department is willing to help themselves rise, and to connect what the individuals want with what the organization or the change artist wants.
11. Among the important principles of change artistry are
    • Always find the energy for change and go with it.
    • Don't get hooked into negative energy.
    • Talk in their terms and find out what the issues really are.
    • Once you're prepared, go to the source.
    • It's perfectly all right to do nothing for a time.

Chapter 5. 대부분의 것을 동일하게 유지하기 (Keeping Most Things the Same)

Summary

1. A change artist's first and foremost responsibility is to use that longer-term, wider-scope knowledge to keep most things the same even in the face of innumerable failures. Until you know how to maintain an organization, you will not know how to change one.
2. All organizations, regardless of their culture, need mechanisms to maintain themselves. You can discover what is being maintained by examining the mechanisms that maintain them. Cannon's principle shows you how to investigate just what these elaborate mechanisms are maintaining—which may not be what the organizations say they are maintaining.
3. Some Variable cultures are devoted to survival of a system of management power, perquisites, and prestige. Such a culture is not a good candidate for a well-planned, well-managed change project.
4. Observing how an organization measures is a good way to apply Cannon's principle. For example, the use of lagging indicators is a good way to recognize failure-oriented organizations, ones that assume they will fail. Instead of working to prevent failure, they are working to maintain the failure level low enough so they won't attract attention. They're also working to establish evidence they can use to point blame at someone else.
5. Another way to understand what a culture values, and what it is trying to maintain, is to examine what it measures. Two of the most common cultures are characterized by the measurement of consumption and the measurement of production. Accounting managers typically measure by consumption. Technology managers typically measure by production.
6. Neither the accounting mentality nor the technology mentality are adequate to the job of software engineering in an Anticipating culture—first, because neither consumption or production alone is a sufficient measure and, second, because both together are inadequate to explain the organization's ability to survive in the future.
7. These systems of maintaining cultures of failure and/or management power are examples of what Argyris calls espoused theory versus theory-in-use. To achieve an Anticipating (Pattern 4) culture, you need to lay bare these hidden purposes.
8. It's not sufficient to set up a process and then expect it to go on forever. Without constant tending, any process will deteriorate, and deterioration of the process invariably leads to deterioration of the product.
9. Design deterioration is the result of a set of design decisions that didn't age well. Each such short-sighted design decision adds a little to the design debt carried by the existing software inventory. Although no single design deterioration seems sufficiently large or exciting to fuss about, after a couple of decades of such decisions—and little effort to correct them—many an IS organization finds itself in Late Status Quo.
10. Maintenance deterioration comes from patching programs in a way that does not entirely preserve their designs. A first-class design endures years of hastily considered patches and finally turns to trash.
11. Design maintenance debt is the sum of design debt and maintenance debt. Design maintenance debt—not the "size" of the modification in function points or lines of code—is the major determining factor in the cost of making a modification to an existing system. This debt is often a major cost and complication factor in changing a software engineering culture.
12. In many software engineering organizations, change artistry debt stands squarely in the way of eradicating the hidden debts in mountains of code. Some organizations have actively attacked their change artistry with covert communications, promotion by buddy system, rumors used to tarnish reputations, punishment of risk-takers, and acceptance of special favors from vendors.
13. The MOI Model says that in order to change, we need motivation, organization, and information. For change, motivation may come from many sources, but any motivation to change is killed by a fear of taking risks. Organization consists of a variety of forms, such as good strategic planning, a reliable infrastructure (such as e-mail, meeting facilities, and phone system), sensible budgets, and a consistent culture.
14. Information for change is needed at two levels. The first kind—the various change artist skills—are of little use without the second—reliable data on the organization's current product and process.
15. The various components of change artistry are intertwined with management behavior, so that certain behaviors over time create an enormous deficit in an organization's change skills. To overcome this debt, an organization needs management attention. Managers need simple rules to govern their behavior if they are to conserve what's good in the present organization while promoting change to an Anticipating organization.
16. Some of the more effective management rules for conserving what's good during change are these:
    • Don't blame. Give and receive information.
    • Don't placate. Take no job that you don't believe in.
    • Cut out the superreasonable slogans and exhortations.
    • No tricks. Means are ends.
    • Trust, and merit trust.
    • Never stop training yourself in change skills.
    • Never stop seeking improvements right around you.
    • Remember that you were born little, just like everybody else. Just because you have a title, you haven't ceased to be a human being.
    • Be an example of what you want others to be.

Chapter 6. 변화 아티스트 되기를 연습하기 (Practicing to Become a Change Artist)