10.3 Change Management & Problem Solving
Key Takeaways
- Kurt Lewin's three-stage change process is unfreezing, changing, and refreezing.
- The five most common responses to change are distrust, uncertainty, self-interest, different perception/no felt need to change, and over-determination.
- The four continuous improvement methodologies are Lean, Six Sigma, Business Process Reengineering, and Theory of Constraints.
- Incorrect root-cause determination is the most common mistake made during continuous improvement efforts, and Step 8 — standardize successful processes — is the most commonly neglected step.
- The three levels of problem solving are Just Do It (one person, less than a day), Rapid Improvement Event (small team, less than a week), and Improvement Project (large team, longer period).
When Change Is Appropriate
AFH 1 defines the trigger: "Change is appropriate when there is a perceived gap between what the norms are and what they should be." And it insists change is deliberate: "Organizational change is not automatic. It is the deliberate adoption of a new idea or behavior by an organization and the establishment of new norms." Those norms can involve technology, tasks, structure, and resources, including people.
The leader's sequence has three parts:
- Create an organizational climate conducive to change by explaining the limitations or shortfalls of the present process and the possibilities and benefits of the proposed change
- Facilitate the change itself by walking Airmen through the change, explaining the details, and answering questions
- Show appreciation for those who contribute to the change and help refocus those who do not
AFH 1 names the ideal disposition: "Tough-minded, realistic optimism is the best quality a leader can demonstrate when coping with change." It also states that Airmen of all skills and jobs should possess a mindset of critical thinking and problem solving as their first duty.
The Five Responses to Change
The change agent is defined as "the person advocating for or leading the organizational change," and AFH 1 states that "an essential element for preventing or overcoming resistance to change is establishing a well thought out plan" — planning lets the change agent build confidence, anticipate questions, develop courses of action, and address opposing perceptions.
| Response | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| Distrust | Imposed change met with tough questions to ensure the purpose and intent are understood. Leaders unprepared to clarify or explain thought processes will struggle to gain buy-in |
| Uncertainty | Fear of the unknown, or seeing the change as a threat to organizational stability and job security — will I still have a job, can I do the new job, must I learn a new process |
| Self-interest | People consider the position they currently have or their role in the existing environment and question the direction and capabilities of those in power after implementation |
| Different Perception / No Felt Need to Change | People see the situation differently, particularly if the change has been dropped on them. The remedy is an environment of open communication |
| Over-Determination | Ironically, organizational structure may be a barrier to change — a mechanistic structure relying on strict procedure and lines of authority may be so rigid that it inhibits change and possibly damages professional relationships |
Over-determination is the one candidates forget, and it links directly back to Section 13B's mechanistic structure.
Reducing Resistance — Five Approaches
| Approach | AFH 1's guidance |
|---|---|
| Education and Communication | Open communication throughout the process reduces uncertainty; educating people about the need for and expected results reduces resistance |
| Participation and Involvement | Actively involving those affected in designing and implementing change generates ownership and commitment |
| Facilitation and Support | Introduce the change gradually and provide additional training if needed |
| Negotiation and Agreement | Offer incentives to those who continue to resist; negotiated agreements help remind employees of the changes agreed upon |
| Coercion | A forcing technique to make employees accept change. It can negatively affect attitudes and cause long-term negative consequences. AFH 1 states plainly: coerced compliance is not recommended and requires constant leadership oversight |
Any scenario answer built on coercion is almost always the least effective option — AFH 1 says so directly.
Lewin's Three-Stage Change Process
AFH 1 credits renowned social psychologist Kurt Lewin with the model. Change agents must analyze restraining or opposing forces and devise ways to reduce them, while recognizing and strengthening supporting forces — those pushing toward change.
| Stage | What happens |
|---|---|
| Stage 1: Unfreezing | A deliberate management activity to prepare people for change. AFH 1 calls the most neglected yet essential part of unfreezing "creating an environment where people feel the need for change." The key factor is making people knowledgeable about the importance of the change and how it will affect their jobs |
| Stage 2: Changing | Modifying technology, tasks, structure, or distribution of people — moving from the old state to the new by installing new equipment, restructuring work centers, or implementing procedures. "Changing is anything that alters the previously accepted status quo." Watch for negative employee reactions as a sign of implementing too early |
| Stage 3: Refreezing | Lock in the desired outcomes and new norms so they become permanent. A critical step is remaining engaged and evaluating results. Positively reinforcing desired outcomes is crucial, and highlighting successful change helps reduce the desire to return to the old way |
AFH 1 adds a note that answers a common scenario: "Readdressing unfreezing techniques is better than forcing a change that causes more problems than it resolves." If a change is going badly, go back to unfreezing rather than pushing harder.
Continuous Improvement
Continuous Improvement (CI) "increases operational capabilities while reducing associated costs by applying proven methodologies to all processes." It is built around three concepts: there are always ways a process can be improved, organizations must constantly strive to make those improvements based on performance metrics aligned to strategic objectives, and efficiencies should be replicated to the extent practical.
AFH 1 stacks up CI's institutional weight — it is an Airman Leadership Quality, is a commander's responsibility (AFI 1-2), is a major graded area in the Air Force Inspection System (AFI 90-201), and is a focal point within Air Force Standards under "Excellence In All We Do" (AFI 1-1).
The Four Methodologies
| Methodology | Primary focus |
|---|---|
| Lean | Workflow, customer value, and eliminating process waste — unique in that the primary focus is eliminating non-value-added activities |
| Six Sigma | A rigorous, data-driven methodology minimizing waste by identifying, controlling, and reducing process variation |
| Business Process Reengineering | A comprehensive process requiring a change in the fundamental way business processes are performed; identifies unnecessary activities and eliminates them |
| Theory of Constraints | A systematic approach to optimize resource utilization by identifying, exploiting, subordinating, elevating, and reassessing constraints (bottlenecks) |
The discriminator: Lean = waste/non-value-added; Six Sigma = variation; BPR = fundamental redesign; Theory of Constraints = bottlenecks.
The Practical Problem-Solving Method — Eight Steps
| Step | Focus | Key rules |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Clarify and Validate the Problem | Develop a problem statement using data to identify where the problem occurs, its impact, and performance against a standard | A problem statement does not assume a root cause, solution, or countermeasure. If data does not exist, pause the effort to collect and analyze it |
| 2. Break Down Problem and Identify Performance Gaps | Analyze data in comparison to the expected outcome | The gap between current state and end state is the performance gap |
| 3. Set Improvement Targets | Set targets based on expected outcomes and strategic goals | Targets should be challenging but achievable |
| 4. Determine Root Cause | Address root causes rather than symptoms | Involves a tradeoff between digging as deeply as possible and finding the deepest point within the team's sphere of influence. Validate using the same data used to define the problem in Step 1 |
| 5. Develop Countermeasures | Address root causes with practical, efficient, and effective countermeasures | "The impact of a solution is a combination of the quality of the solution and the acceptance of the solution by people who implement it." Obtain a vector check for strategic alignment |
| 6. See Countermeasures Through | Execution and tracking of detailed implementation plans | Reviews and progress checks updated regularly |
| 7. Confirm Results and Process | Compare results to performance gaps, targets, and expected outcome | Incorrect root-cause determination is the most common mistake made during CI efforts. If targets are not met, it may be necessary to return to Step 4 |
| 8. Standardize Successful Processes | Codify the results | The most commonly neglected step of the entire method |
Step 8's three questions: What is needed to standardize the improvements? (submission to the Airmen Powered by Innovation Program, or change requests for technical orders, instructions, manuals, materiel, suppliers). How should improvements and lessons learned be communicated? (make the wing process manager aware; input to the USAF CI portal, key meetings, publications, public affairs, the chain of command). Were other opportunities or problems identified?
The Three Levels of Effort
| Level | Team size | Duration | AFH 1's examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Just Do It (point improvement) | One person or a small team | Less than a day | Using torque wrenches instead of adjustable wrenches; routing paperwork electronically |
| Rapid Improvement Event | Small team of subject matter experts | Less than a week | Improving aircraft servicing cycle times; improving first-time pass yields on taskers |
| Improvement Project | Large team | Longer period of time | Shortening aircraft annual overhaul cycle time; writing software to track annual overhauls |
Project Management
AFH 1 defines project management as "the process of leading, coordinating, planning, and controlling a diverse and complex set of processes and people in the pursuit of achieving an established objective," and immediately draws the distinction that gets tested: "a project is not a program; programs are ongoing. A project is temporary, based on an established objective that has a generalized time frame attached to it."
The six project management steps: Define the Project Objective → Develop Solution Options → Plan the Project → Execute the Plan → Monitor and Control Progress → Close the Project. On the last, AFH 1 insists: document and discuss lessons learned — what went well, what didn't, and what should be addressed.
The three constraints are Quality (being in accordance with the requirement — the specifications), Time (the amount of time to complete the project), and Cost (resource constraints including money, manpower, machinery, and materials). One of the three will be your driver, and the driving constraint will have an impact on the other two.
Two planning techniques:
- Work breakdown structure — divides a project into sub-units or work packages, typically at two or three levels of detail, minimizing the chance of neglecting or overlooking an essential step
- Task analysis — adds what a work breakdown structure does not show: task milestones, how milestones can be measured, and resources or requirements. It provides the crucial information for determining how the tasks interrelate, and proper sequencing must be established before beginning a project
According to AFH 1, which is the most common mistake made during continuous improvement efforts, and which step of the practical problem-solving method is most commonly neglected?
Which response to change does AFH 1 describe as ironic, because the organization's own structure becomes the barrier?
A supervisor is halfway through implementing a new work center procedure and is seeing sustained negative reactions and bogged-down production. What does AFH 1 recommend?