Change is an emotional business. The failure to address the human impacts of change is at the root of most failed change initiatives. It is not enough just to "manage" change; people need to be led through change.
One of the major change leadership priorities is recognising and addressing the inner psychological and emotional adjustments that people move through in response to external organisational change events.
William Bridges draws the important distinction between organisational change and what he calls the "transition" that people need to move through in order to successfully adapt to the new circumstances arising from that change.
Here are 3 important guidelines that Bridges' highlights:
(1) "Transition readiness" is best indicated by an organisations legacy of change initiatives
Whenever Bridges' team undertake an assignment one of their first assessments is of what he calls "transition readiness". This is important he says as it "provides an important early indicator of what lies ahead, and one of the things we inquire into is the organisation's history of changes, both those that worked and those that didn't."
A deeper dimension to this enquiry into the change initiative legacy is to look at the scars left by successful as well as unsuccessful initiatives.
From a change leadership perspective, it is crucial to understand and address the scar tissue left by previous initiatives. The most effective way of doing this is by actions - by demonstrating that you as change leader do understand and care, and that you are taking steps to mitigate the pain.
(2) Executive detachment from everyday work impedes transition
So often it is just assumed by senior management that people can and will accept an organisational change.
But, the failure to recognise and attempt to address this dimension is a significant cause of organisational change failure. The larger the human impact of the organisational change the greater the need for some form of "transitional support".
Many directors and senior managers have the emotional detachment and objectivity to make clear, sound strategic decisions yet seem to lack the "counter-balancing" self-awareness and emotional intelligence to realise the impact of their decisions.
This omission frequently [and unnecessarily] delays or jeopardises the implementation of their strategic vision and the realisation of the organisational benefits.
Bridges: "These executives' detachment from the everyday work-work, which is so often defended as necessary to be 'strategic,' keeps these people from understanding what has to happen for changes to work as planned."
The higher you are in your organisation - the more quickly you are likely to move through your own personal transition. You know the intended destination, and have probably known for some while. Most of your people however, will not have this head start.
Your people won't "just get it"; they will take at least as long as you did to transition and quite probably a lot longer.
As a change leader, it is important to understand why your people will not necessarily embrace change.
In my view, the reality is that most organisational leaders come from technical, operational or financial backgrounds and, to put it bluntly, do not have the necessary people skills or experience to lead their people through a transition.
Bridges makes the point that it is significant that: "the great leaders, from Moses and Caesar to Lincoln and Lee, were people who deeply understood the people they were leading."
(3) Debrief thoroughly after each change initiative - find out what worked and what didn't
Bridges says that senior executives are usually in such a hurry to move on to the next change that they fail to learn from each concluding change initiative. He says that executives need to undertake a careful debrief to identify key lessons learnt.
He shares this anecdote: "I first realized that after helping a 50,000-person technology company close a fabricating plant. It went very well--they actually doubled productivity per person during the closedown process! But when they called to ask for help in shutting another facility, I discovered that they had 'forgotten' what they had done with the previous shutdown."
In Bridges' view, senior executives need to regard every change initiative as a thorough learning experience, to ascertain what worked and didn't and why.
Showing posts with label Methods. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Methods. Show all posts
Change Management - How to Make it Work and Deliver the Benefits
The western world-view of business can be somewhat simplistically summarised by the "3 P's" - process, people and pounds sterling - a business climate where the "bottom line" is delivered by process - worked by people.
The traditional project approach to change management sees it as a set of tasks that if executed successfully get a result. In other words the typical process led approach which has failed so consistently and so spectacularly over the last 20 years!
Frequently the driver for initiating change is financial - and processes are designed and put in place to deliver the financial benefit. However, 70% of the time it just doesn't work!
Processes that work for people
But, in my view, process is just about people doing stuff - so ultimately it's all about people - and processes that work for people.
We are now living through a scenario of unprecedented change where many of the accepted paradigms are shifting. So a timely approach to managing change and achieving a successful programme implementation is [in my view] one that focuses greater attention on people.
5 key success factors
Here are the key factors that will determine the success of your initiative:
(1) Determining that you are embarking on a step change that sits outside of business as usual and needs to be handled as a specific step-change initiative
(2) The quality of leadership that you provide
(3) Using a programme management based approach to your step change initiative
(4) The thoroughness of your pre-programme review and planning process
(5) The extent to which you identify and address the cultural change in your organisation that is required to deliver the step change and the desired business benefit.
Micro-managing the set up of a step change initiative
In my work as change management specialist, I deliberately pay a lot of attention to the detail and process of successful strategies for managing change. I believe in micro-managing the set up of a step change initiative with a big front-end commitment of senior management time. It is worth it because if you think it all through properly - and set it all up correctly - you get the return on investment of that time in realised benefits.
Clearly the single biggest reason for the astonishingly high 70% failure rate has been the over-emphasis on project process rather than the people aspects - the failure to take full account of the impact of change on those people who are most impacted by it. Closely allied to that reason is the lack of process to directly address the human aspects of change.
The traditional project approach to change management sees it as a set of tasks that if executed successfully get a result. In other words the typical process led approach which has failed so consistently and so spectacularly over the last 20 years!
Frequently the driver for initiating change is financial - and processes are designed and put in place to deliver the financial benefit. However, 70% of the time it just doesn't work!
Processes that work for people
But, in my view, process is just about people doing stuff - so ultimately it's all about people - and processes that work for people.
We are now living through a scenario of unprecedented change where many of the accepted paradigms are shifting. So a timely approach to managing change and achieving a successful programme implementation is [in my view] one that focuses greater attention on people.
5 key success factors
Here are the key factors that will determine the success of your initiative:
(1) Determining that you are embarking on a step change that sits outside of business as usual and needs to be handled as a specific step-change initiative
(2) The quality of leadership that you provide
(3) Using a programme management based approach to your step change initiative
(4) The thoroughness of your pre-programme review and planning process
(5) The extent to which you identify and address the cultural change in your organisation that is required to deliver the step change and the desired business benefit.
Micro-managing the set up of a step change initiative
In my work as change management specialist, I deliberately pay a lot of attention to the detail and process of successful strategies for managing change. I believe in micro-managing the set up of a step change initiative with a big front-end commitment of senior management time. It is worth it because if you think it all through properly - and set it all up correctly - you get the return on investment of that time in realised benefits.
Clearly the single biggest reason for the astonishingly high 70% failure rate has been the over-emphasis on project process rather than the people aspects - the failure to take full account of the impact of change on those people who are most impacted by it. Closely allied to that reason is the lack of process to directly address the human aspects of change.
William Bridges - 3 Simple Questions to Lead People Through a Change Transition
William Bridges focuses on the transitions and the psychological changes that lie behind significant organisational change. Bridges draws the important and frequently overlooked distinction between change and transition. Bridges sees change as situational and transition as psychological.
In my experience and in my view - it is the people related issues that lie behind the staggering and consistent 70% failure rate of all significant organisational change initiatives.
"A change can work only if the people affected by it can get through the transition it causes successfully."
So many times I have asked the question of directors considering some form of change initiative: "Why are you doing it and how will it benefit you and how will you know it's benefited you?" - and got a vague or general answer along the lines of "we'll be... bigger... better... closer to our customers... reduce our costs... etc"
In a recent article, Bridges said; "It still surprises me how often organizations undertake changes that no one can describe very clearly." He poses these 3 simple questions:
(1) What is changing?
So often senior executive convey a very unclear picture of the change and describe it in terms of generalities. Bridges believes that change leaders need to able to express the change in a clear simple statement that can be expressed in under one minute. This way people will obtain a core understanding of what is changing.
Bridges offers the following guidance - the statement must:
- Clearly express the change leader's understanding and intention
- Link the change to the drivers that make it necessary
- "Sell the problem before you try to sell the solution."
- Not use jargon
- Be under 60 seconds in duration
(2) What will actually be different because of the change?
Bridges says: "I go into organizations where a change initiative is well underway, and I ask what will be different when the change is done-and no one can answer the question."
He believes that in many cases, change initiatives are conceived at such a high level in the management structure that the planners are unaware and out of touch with the impacts the change will have - on departments, jobs and individuals: "A change may seem very important and very real to the leader, but to the people who have to make it work it seems quite abstract and vague until actual differences that it will make begin to become clear... the drive to get those differences clear should be an important priority on the planners' list of things to do."
In my view this is all about clear communication and good expectation management. This is what a programme based approach to change management addresses directly.
(3) Who's going to lose what?
Bridges maintains that the situational changes are not as difficult for companies to make as the psychological transitions of the people impacted by the change.
He suggests that the transition starts with a loss - a letting go of the old ways of how things were before the change: "...we often say... that you don't cross the line separating change management from transition management until you have asked 'Who will lose [or has lost] what?'"
Transition management is all about seeing the situation through the eyes of the other guy. It is a perspective based on empathy. It is management and communication process that recognises and affirms people's realities and works with them to bring them through the transition. Failure to do this, on the part of change leaders, and a denial of the losses and "lettings go" that people are faced with, sows the seeds of mistrust.
In my view, William Bridges' 3 simple questions are an excellent starting place for addressing the foundational causes of the catastrophic 70% failure rate in change management, and it resonates with and is totally consistent with the holistic and wide view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
In my experience and in my view - it is the people related issues that lie behind the staggering and consistent 70% failure rate of all significant organisational change initiatives.
"A change can work only if the people affected by it can get through the transition it causes successfully."
So many times I have asked the question of directors considering some form of change initiative: "Why are you doing it and how will it benefit you and how will you know it's benefited you?" - and got a vague or general answer along the lines of "we'll be... bigger... better... closer to our customers... reduce our costs... etc"
In a recent article, Bridges said; "It still surprises me how often organizations undertake changes that no one can describe very clearly." He poses these 3 simple questions:
(1) What is changing?
So often senior executive convey a very unclear picture of the change and describe it in terms of generalities. Bridges believes that change leaders need to able to express the change in a clear simple statement that can be expressed in under one minute. This way people will obtain a core understanding of what is changing.
Bridges offers the following guidance - the statement must:
- Clearly express the change leader's understanding and intention
- Link the change to the drivers that make it necessary
- "Sell the problem before you try to sell the solution."
- Not use jargon
- Be under 60 seconds in duration
(2) What will actually be different because of the change?
Bridges says: "I go into organizations where a change initiative is well underway, and I ask what will be different when the change is done-and no one can answer the question."
He believes that in many cases, change initiatives are conceived at such a high level in the management structure that the planners are unaware and out of touch with the impacts the change will have - on departments, jobs and individuals: "A change may seem very important and very real to the leader, but to the people who have to make it work it seems quite abstract and vague until actual differences that it will make begin to become clear... the drive to get those differences clear should be an important priority on the planners' list of things to do."
In my view this is all about clear communication and good expectation management. This is what a programme based approach to change management addresses directly.
(3) Who's going to lose what?
Bridges maintains that the situational changes are not as difficult for companies to make as the psychological transitions of the people impacted by the change.
He suggests that the transition starts with a loss - a letting go of the old ways of how things were before the change: "...we often say... that you don't cross the line separating change management from transition management until you have asked 'Who will lose [or has lost] what?'"
Transition management is all about seeing the situation through the eyes of the other guy. It is a perspective based on empathy. It is management and communication process that recognises and affirms people's realities and works with them to bring them through the transition. Failure to do this, on the part of change leaders, and a denial of the losses and "lettings go" that people are faced with, sows the seeds of mistrust.
In my view, William Bridges' 3 simple questions are an excellent starting place for addressing the foundational causes of the catastrophic 70% failure rate in change management, and it resonates with and is totally consistent with the holistic and wide view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
John Kotter - How to Manage Change - A Sense of (The Right Kind Of) Urgency
In his seminal 1995 book "Leading Change" John Kotter introduced his eight-step change process, the first of which is to create urgency. Kotter suggests, that for change to be successful, at least 75% of a company's management needs to "buy into" the change.
So for change to happen there needs to be a shared a sense of urgency around the need for change. And this will result from honest and open dialogue with your people about what's happening in your market and with your competition. If many people start talking about the change you propose, the urgency can build and feed on itself.
"A Sense of Urgency" (Harvard Business Press, 2008) is the title of Kotter's latest book on change management and change leadership in organisations. Here he develops the theme from the first step of "Leading Change" and highlights the 2 types of urgency:
(1) Inward looking - panic driven urgency
This is the urgency born of the "knee jerk" reaction and is fear based. A fear based on losing something. It is unproductive and drains people of energy. It is characterized by frantic and frenetic activity - sometimes known as the "headless chicken" syndrome. People are fearful of losing their jobs and keep on taking on more and more often working 12-14 hour days filled with endless meetings.
Kotter believes that one reason for the catastrophic 70% failure rate of all change initiatives is the leaders do not create a positive sense of urgency around what they are doing. They dive straight into a low level project based attempt at implementing a solution.
(2) Outward looking - risk / opportunity focused urgency
This "good" urgency is all about a constant focus on the external risks and opportunities. As Kotter says: "It involves relentless focus on doing only those things that move the business forward in the marketplace and on doing them right now, if not sooner."
Good leaders will, with the greatest sense of urgency, pay attention to the internal metrics of their business but they are much more focused and much more interested in what's happening on the outside: "They want to have as many metrics about their competitors as they do about themselves."
Kotter believes that all meetings should reference what is happening in the external world - or not take place!
He cites the example of a company installing a new software system and suggests that the leader should be saying: "...What other companies do we know that have done this? What problems did they solve, and how did they solve them? Wouldn't that be useful information? Let's get it."
Ultimately, Kotter believes that (a) outward focused "good" urgency energizes people and enables to generate positive emotions and (b) it is the responsibility of the leader to model this by example.
In my experience, the quality of leadership that you provide is one of the top 5 factors that will determine whether you really do succeed and realise the benefits with your change initiative - or you join the long list of 70% failures.
So for change to happen there needs to be a shared a sense of urgency around the need for change. And this will result from honest and open dialogue with your people about what's happening in your market and with your competition. If many people start talking about the change you propose, the urgency can build and feed on itself.
"A Sense of Urgency" (Harvard Business Press, 2008) is the title of Kotter's latest book on change management and change leadership in organisations. Here he develops the theme from the first step of "Leading Change" and highlights the 2 types of urgency:
(1) Inward looking - panic driven urgency
This is the urgency born of the "knee jerk" reaction and is fear based. A fear based on losing something. It is unproductive and drains people of energy. It is characterized by frantic and frenetic activity - sometimes known as the "headless chicken" syndrome. People are fearful of losing their jobs and keep on taking on more and more often working 12-14 hour days filled with endless meetings.
Kotter believes that one reason for the catastrophic 70% failure rate of all change initiatives is the leaders do not create a positive sense of urgency around what they are doing. They dive straight into a low level project based attempt at implementing a solution.
(2) Outward looking - risk / opportunity focused urgency
This "good" urgency is all about a constant focus on the external risks and opportunities. As Kotter says: "It involves relentless focus on doing only those things that move the business forward in the marketplace and on doing them right now, if not sooner."
Good leaders will, with the greatest sense of urgency, pay attention to the internal metrics of their business but they are much more focused and much more interested in what's happening on the outside: "They want to have as many metrics about their competitors as they do about themselves."
Kotter believes that all meetings should reference what is happening in the external world - or not take place!
He cites the example of a company installing a new software system and suggests that the leader should be saying: "...What other companies do we know that have done this? What problems did they solve, and how did they solve them? Wouldn't that be useful information? Let's get it."
Ultimately, Kotter believes that (a) outward focused "good" urgency energizes people and enables to generate positive emotions and (b) it is the responsibility of the leader to model this by example.
In my experience, the quality of leadership that you provide is one of the top 5 factors that will determine whether you really do succeed and realise the benefits with your change initiative - or you join the long list of 70% failures.
Stakeholder Analysis and Mapping - 3 Key Questions to Ask in How to Manage Expectations in a Change
Failure reasons in change management are many and varied. But one thing is painfully clear. Any organisational initiative that creates change - or has a significant change element to it - has a 70% chance of not achieving what was originally envisaged.
The root cause of all this failure is lack of clarity and a lack of communication - and even more fundamentally - the lack of a language and contextual framework to articulate and manage the necessary processes of change.
This is what a Programme Management based approach to change is all about and why it so important. One important aspect of programme management is "Stakeholder Analysis and Mapping" and this is all about, in other words: "Who is this step change going to affect and how are they going to react, and what do we have to do to support them?".
How well you listen to and respond to ALL of your stakeholders' issues - and are seen to be doing so - is a significant measure of the effectiveness of your management of these relationships.
Leadership skills make a big difference to successfully managing stakeholder relationships. This is where the management of expectations matters. Here are 3 key questions to address in managing expectations in a change initiative, and specifically in relation to your employees.
1. Do your people really know what is expected of them?
Do your people know how to translate the high level vision and strategy into actionable steps? People are very different in the ways they process information, interpret life, and in the ways they are motivated. Many (probably most) of them are not able to make the leap from hearing and understanding your vision and strategy to translating that into purposeful productive action. This does not mean that they don't understand it, or agree with it, but it does simply mean that the leap is too great for most people to make - without your practical assistance.
2. Do they know what they can expect from you?
It is extremely important to that they know that you will work with them in "grinding out" in practical, manageable detail what the high level strategy, vision, values things actually mean for them as the "troops" in action.
3. Do they know what is expected of each other?
They also need to know what these actionable steps mean for them in terms of what they can and should expect from each other.
Of all strategies for managing change - the programme management based approach is the most likely to ensure that you avoid the staggering and needless 70% failure rate, as [amongst other things] it it will get you to focus on the critical issue of the human impacts of your change initiative.
The root cause of all this failure is lack of clarity and a lack of communication - and even more fundamentally - the lack of a language and contextual framework to articulate and manage the necessary processes of change.
This is what a Programme Management based approach to change is all about and why it so important. One important aspect of programme management is "Stakeholder Analysis and Mapping" and this is all about, in other words: "Who is this step change going to affect and how are they going to react, and what do we have to do to support them?".
How well you listen to and respond to ALL of your stakeholders' issues - and are seen to be doing so - is a significant measure of the effectiveness of your management of these relationships.
Leadership skills make a big difference to successfully managing stakeholder relationships. This is where the management of expectations matters. Here are 3 key questions to address in managing expectations in a change initiative, and specifically in relation to your employees.
1. Do your people really know what is expected of them?
Do your people know how to translate the high level vision and strategy into actionable steps? People are very different in the ways they process information, interpret life, and in the ways they are motivated. Many (probably most) of them are not able to make the leap from hearing and understanding your vision and strategy to translating that into purposeful productive action. This does not mean that they don't understand it, or agree with it, but it does simply mean that the leap is too great for most people to make - without your practical assistance.
2. Do they know what they can expect from you?
It is extremely important to that they know that you will work with them in "grinding out" in practical, manageable detail what the high level strategy, vision, values things actually mean for them as the "troops" in action.
3. Do they know what is expected of each other?
They also need to know what these actionable steps mean for them in terms of what they can and should expect from each other.
Of all strategies for managing change - the programme management based approach is the most likely to ensure that you avoid the staggering and needless 70% failure rate, as [amongst other things] it it will get you to focus on the critical issue of the human impacts of your change initiative.
How to Manage Change - 8 Guiding Principles From John Kotter
There are many theories about how to manage change. Many come from change management guru, John Kotter, a professor at Harvard Business School. Kotter introduced his eight-step change process in his 1995 book,"Leading Change."
Step One: Create Urgency
Kotter suggests that for change to be successful, 75% of a company's management needs to "buy into" the change. So for change to happen there needs to be a shared a sense of urgency around the need for change.
And this will result from honest and open dialogue with your people about what's happening in your market and with your competition. If many people start talking about the change you propose, the urgency can build and feed on itself.
Step Two: Form a Powerful Coalition
To successfully persuade people that change is necessary takes strong leadership and the very visible support from key people within your organisation.
This isn't just about managing change - this has to be led and you have to be seen to lead it.
To lead change, you need to bring together a coalition, or team, of influential people whose power comes from a variety of sources, including job title, status, expertise, and political importance.
You can find effective change leaders at all levels within your organisation - they don't necessarily follow the traditional company hierarchy. It is important to get an emotional commitment from these key people as you build a team to support your change initiative.
Step Three: Create a Vision for Change
You need to create a clear coherent vision that people can grasp easily and remember and that can help everyone understand why you're asking them to do something.
When people have clarity about what you're trying to achieve, and why then you stand a greater chance of communicating with them
Step Four: Communicate the Vision
How effectively and consistently you share and communicate your vision will have a big influence on the success of your change initiative.
There will be resistance and competing messages from many other sources and influences within your organization so you need to communicate it frequently and powerfully, and embed it within everything that you do.
It's also extremely important to "walk the talk." What you do is far more credible than what you say. You have to demonstrate the kind of behaviour and attitudes that you want from your people.
Step Five: Remove Obstacles
There will be resistance to change. You need to identify it early and take steps to deal with it finding and resolving the root causes.
Put in place the structure for change, and continually check for barriers to it - especially with your organisational structure, job descriptions, and performance and compensation systems - it is vital that these are in line with your vision.
Step Six: Create Short-term Wins
Success breeds success - so early wins are very motivational and very important for morale and for overcoming resistance.
You can help achieve this by setting achievable and believable short-term targets.
This is very much in line with Ken Blanchard's ideas in "The One Minute Manager" of "catching them doing something right" [and praising them for it].
Step Seven: Build on the Change
Kotter argues that many change projects fail because victory is declared too early - he teaches that real and lasting change runs deep.
This is really all about building momentum and making continuous improvement an embedded part of your culture. In practice this means keeping things fresh with new ideas and regular review of what went right with each win identifying areas for improvement.
Step Eight: Anchor the Changes in Corporate Culture
Finally, to make any change stick, it should become part of the culture of your organisation as this is the biggest determinant of how people will behave.
It's also important that your company's leaders continue to support the change. This includes existing staff and new leaders who are brought in. If you lose the support of these people, you might end up back where you started.
Step One: Create Urgency
Kotter suggests that for change to be successful, 75% of a company's management needs to "buy into" the change. So for change to happen there needs to be a shared a sense of urgency around the need for change.
And this will result from honest and open dialogue with your people about what's happening in your market and with your competition. If many people start talking about the change you propose, the urgency can build and feed on itself.
Step Two: Form a Powerful Coalition
To successfully persuade people that change is necessary takes strong leadership and the very visible support from key people within your organisation.
This isn't just about managing change - this has to be led and you have to be seen to lead it.
To lead change, you need to bring together a coalition, or team, of influential people whose power comes from a variety of sources, including job title, status, expertise, and political importance.
You can find effective change leaders at all levels within your organisation - they don't necessarily follow the traditional company hierarchy. It is important to get an emotional commitment from these key people as you build a team to support your change initiative.
Step Three: Create a Vision for Change
You need to create a clear coherent vision that people can grasp easily and remember and that can help everyone understand why you're asking them to do something.
When people have clarity about what you're trying to achieve, and why then you stand a greater chance of communicating with them
Step Four: Communicate the Vision
How effectively and consistently you share and communicate your vision will have a big influence on the success of your change initiative.
There will be resistance and competing messages from many other sources and influences within your organization so you need to communicate it frequently and powerfully, and embed it within everything that you do.
It's also extremely important to "walk the talk." What you do is far more credible than what you say. You have to demonstrate the kind of behaviour and attitudes that you want from your people.
Step Five: Remove Obstacles
There will be resistance to change. You need to identify it early and take steps to deal with it finding and resolving the root causes.
Put in place the structure for change, and continually check for barriers to it - especially with your organisational structure, job descriptions, and performance and compensation systems - it is vital that these are in line with your vision.
Step Six: Create Short-term Wins
Success breeds success - so early wins are very motivational and very important for morale and for overcoming resistance.
You can help achieve this by setting achievable and believable short-term targets.
This is very much in line with Ken Blanchard's ideas in "The One Minute Manager" of "catching them doing something right" [and praising them for it].
Step Seven: Build on the Change
Kotter argues that many change projects fail because victory is declared too early - he teaches that real and lasting change runs deep.
This is really all about building momentum and making continuous improvement an embedded part of your culture. In practice this means keeping things fresh with new ideas and regular review of what went right with each win identifying areas for improvement.
Step Eight: Anchor the Changes in Corporate Culture
Finally, to make any change stick, it should become part of the culture of your organisation as this is the biggest determinant of how people will behave.
It's also important that your company's leaders continue to support the change. This includes existing staff and new leaders who are brought in. If you lose the support of these people, you might end up back where you started.
How will I know if my change initiative has benefited me? - The Benefit Profile
In considering any step change initiative - in any organisation, in any sector and any location, we need to be asking and seeking answers to these simple questions:
- How am I going to manage all this so that it happens and I succeed?
- How's it going to be different when I've made the change?
- Why am I doing this - how's it going to benefit me?
- How will I know it's benefited me?
- Who's it going to affect and how will they react?
- What can I do to get them "on side"?
- What steps do I have to take to make the changes and get the benefit?
- What are the risks and issues that I'll have to face?
As you create a change initiative, if you don't know with pristine clarity how's it going to benefit your organisation - then you are unlikely to realise it.
Sounds obvious, doesn't it? And I really don't mean to sound so pedantic - but you would be surprised but how many times I have asked the question: "How will it benefit you and how will you know it's benefited you?" - and got a vague or general answer along the lines of "we'll be... bigger... better... closer to our customers... reduce our costs... etc"
The management and monitoring of these processes is key to ensuring that you actually do benefit as an organisation from the planned step change and the new capabilities that the change will be delivering.
Benefit management is the activity of identifying, optimising and tracking the expected benefits from a business change initiative to ensure that they are achieved.
Those Benefits identified need to be defined so that the change initiative can monitor and track their progress. The definition is called the "Benefit Profile."
These should be agreed with the managers of the business areas where they will actually be realised. They can then be managed and controlled - as this is of primary importance to the success of the change initiative.
The definition of a Benefit must pass four critical tests:
(1) Description - what precisely is it?
(2) Observation - what differences should be noticeable before and after?
(3) Attribution - where in the future business operations does it arise?
(4) Measurement - how will it be measured?
And the definitions should include the following:
- The description
- How it will be measured
- Projected changes from the current business processes and operations
- Inter-dependencies with other benefits
- Key performance indicators in the business operations now and for the future
- Explicit linkages, wherever possible, between projects and deliverables
- Dependencies on risks and other programmes or projects
- Financial valuations
- When it is expected to occur and over what period of time will realisation take place
So, to summarise - you need to know:
- What each benefit is?
- What differences will be noticeable before and after?
- Exactly where in the future organisation it will arise?
- How will it be measured?
If you don't know - with pristine clarity - the answers to these questions then how on earth is your change initiative going to benefit your organisation?
Stephen Warrilow: www.strategies-for-managing-change.com
- How am I going to manage all this so that it happens and I succeed?
- How's it going to be different when I've made the change?
- Why am I doing this - how's it going to benefit me?
- How will I know it's benefited me?
- Who's it going to affect and how will they react?
- What can I do to get them "on side"?
- What steps do I have to take to make the changes and get the benefit?
- What are the risks and issues that I'll have to face?
As you create a change initiative, if you don't know with pristine clarity how's it going to benefit your organisation - then you are unlikely to realise it.
Sounds obvious, doesn't it? And I really don't mean to sound so pedantic - but you would be surprised but how many times I have asked the question: "How will it benefit you and how will you know it's benefited you?" - and got a vague or general answer along the lines of "we'll be... bigger... better... closer to our customers... reduce our costs... etc"
The management and monitoring of these processes is key to ensuring that you actually do benefit as an organisation from the planned step change and the new capabilities that the change will be delivering.
Benefit management is the activity of identifying, optimising and tracking the expected benefits from a business change initiative to ensure that they are achieved.
Those Benefits identified need to be defined so that the change initiative can monitor and track their progress. The definition is called the "Benefit Profile."
These should be agreed with the managers of the business areas where they will actually be realised. They can then be managed and controlled - as this is of primary importance to the success of the change initiative.
The definition of a Benefit must pass four critical tests:
(1) Description - what precisely is it?
(2) Observation - what differences should be noticeable before and after?
(3) Attribution - where in the future business operations does it arise?
(4) Measurement - how will it be measured?
And the definitions should include the following:
- The description
- How it will be measured
- Projected changes from the current business processes and operations
- Inter-dependencies with other benefits
- Key performance indicators in the business operations now and for the future
- Explicit linkages, wherever possible, between projects and deliverables
- Dependencies on risks and other programmes or projects
- Financial valuations
- When it is expected to occur and over what period of time will realisation take place
So, to summarise - you need to know:
- What each benefit is?
- What differences will be noticeable before and after?
- Exactly where in the future organisation it will arise?
- How will it be measured?
If you don't know - with pristine clarity - the answers to these questions then how on earth is your change initiative going to benefit your organisation?
Stephen Warrilow: www.strategies-for-managing-change.com
How's it going to be different when I've made the change? - The Blueprint
In considering any step change initiative - in any organisation, in any sector and any location, we need to be asking and seeking answers to these simple questions:
- How am I going to manage all this so that it happens and I succeed?
- How's it going to be different when I've made the change?
- Why am I doing this - how's it going to benefit me?
- How will I know it's benefited me?
- Who's it going to affect and how will they react?
- What can I do to get them "on side"?
- What steps do I have to take to make the changes and get the benefit?
- What are the risks and issues that I'll have to face?
The Blueprint is just a fancy term for a description of how your organisation is going to look after the step change.
As you create a change programme, the more detail and clarity you have about this, the greater the chance you have of being able to communicate it to your staff and customers - and the higher the possibility that you will actually achieve it.
I often ask people directors how they envisage their organisation looking after the change - and all too often the answers are fairly vague - or expressed in terms of "bigger", "better", "closer to customers", "more efficient / profitable / cash flow..." etc.
You need to know precisely:
- How?
- Where?
- When?
- Why?
...The changed organisation will be different.
The Blueprint is a clear, defined documentation of your changed organisation - after the completion of the Programme and the delivery of the benefits.
In other words - this is the capability - and the "where we want to be" - that you described in the Pre Programme Review and Planning process. It is used actively in a structured manner to maintain focus on the delivery of the new capability throughout the duration of your Programme. It takes the review process further and provides a detailed description of what the changed organisation looks like in terms of:
- Organisation structure, staffing levels, roles and skill requirements necessary to support the future business operations
- Cultural changes and the specific definitions, characteristics, actions and behaviours that will define the new or changed culture
- Business models of the new functions, processes and operations
- Information systems, tools, equipment, buildings, required for the future business operations
- The data required for the future business operations
- Costs, performance and service levels for the support required for the future business operations
With the possible exception of the "Benefits Profile" [i.e. the definition of the benefits of your change initiative] , the Blueprint is the single most important document in your whole change initiative.
If you don't know what it's going to look like - how on earth will you know when you've got there?
And even more to the point - how can you expect your people to buy-in to and fully support your change initiative?
Stephen Warrilow: www.strategies-for-managing-change.com
- How am I going to manage all this so that it happens and I succeed?
- How's it going to be different when I've made the change?
- Why am I doing this - how's it going to benefit me?
- How will I know it's benefited me?
- Who's it going to affect and how will they react?
- What can I do to get them "on side"?
- What steps do I have to take to make the changes and get the benefit?
- What are the risks and issues that I'll have to face?
The Blueprint is just a fancy term for a description of how your organisation is going to look after the step change.
As you create a change programme, the more detail and clarity you have about this, the greater the chance you have of being able to communicate it to your staff and customers - and the higher the possibility that you will actually achieve it.
I often ask people directors how they envisage their organisation looking after the change - and all too often the answers are fairly vague - or expressed in terms of "bigger", "better", "closer to customers", "more efficient / profitable / cash flow..." etc.
You need to know precisely:
- How?
- Where?
- When?
- Why?
...The changed organisation will be different.
The Blueprint is a clear, defined documentation of your changed organisation - after the completion of the Programme and the delivery of the benefits.
In other words - this is the capability - and the "where we want to be" - that you described in the Pre Programme Review and Planning process. It is used actively in a structured manner to maintain focus on the delivery of the new capability throughout the duration of your Programme. It takes the review process further and provides a detailed description of what the changed organisation looks like in terms of:
- Organisation structure, staffing levels, roles and skill requirements necessary to support the future business operations
- Cultural changes and the specific definitions, characteristics, actions and behaviours that will define the new or changed culture
- Business models of the new functions, processes and operations
- Information systems, tools, equipment, buildings, required for the future business operations
- The data required for the future business operations
- Costs, performance and service levels for the support required for the future business operations
With the possible exception of the "Benefits Profile" [i.e. the definition of the benefits of your change initiative] , the Blueprint is the single most important document in your whole change initiative.
If you don't know what it's going to look like - how on earth will you know when you've got there?
And even more to the point - how can you expect your people to buy-in to and fully support your change initiative?
Stephen Warrilow: www.strategies-for-managing-change.com
Pre - programme review & planning - How to reduce the risk of failure of any major business initiative
Why do so many business initiatives and ventures needlessly fail to deliver the promised benefits and increases in shareholder value?
Any major business initiative or venture that fails to identify and quantify the impact on those people most affected by it carries a high risk of failure.
The numbers may make sense but have the political and cultural factors been assessed?
There are several reasons why this is often not addressed: first and foremost because the focus is on getting the deal done; secondly because a corporate culture is hard to see (especially if you are in it) and this is compounded by the fact that there is often more than one culture, and finally because it is hard to talk about.
And yet.... the price of failure comes high!
The reason why understanding your cultures is so important is that they are the single biggest determinant of how people in your organisation will behave - and especially in the context of a step change.
I have developed a diagnostic process called EEMap(c). This process allows a company to test the impact of a proposed business initiative or venture on those people most affected by it, to identify why it may fail and to establish precisely what has got to be done to make it a success.
Principal benefits are that it is low tech and simple to understand and apply, it involves staff at all levels and enables them to articulate difficult issues in a non-confrontational way, and it can be undertaken quickly and before large sums of money are irrevocably committed to the venture or initiative
There are three phases to the EEMap process: -
* Situation Analysis - that defines a cultural frame work for the company and will also identify all of the significant subcultures within the company that will assist or resist progress towards the business objectives of the proposed venture.
* Gap Analysis -plots the positions of key entities within the company and highlights the gaps between this and where the directors say or think the company is, and where they want to be.
* Resolution -shows the tasks, steps and processes that have to be undertaken. All implications, issues and exposures are analysed, categorised and prioritised across all functional areas impacted by the proposed venture.
In this planning process there are no fixed parameters as to who should or shouldn't be included - it may be conducted with just a very small senior management team comprising 2 or 3 people - or extended to include a wider cross section of management and staff.
The process is designed to:
1. Make you think deeply about your proposed change;
2. To understand as fully as possible the impact it is likely to have, and
3. To work out clearly exactly how you are going to reap the benefits from the change.
If all this seems like a lot of work - yes it is! I won't deny that this process can be time consuming - but it will ensure that you dramatically increase your chances of success - and as a by-product save you an inestimable amount of time, hassle and money in the future.
Alternatively, do what most organisations do - go ahead and skip all of this - dive straight into a project or task level implementation of your good idea - and considerably increase your chances of joining the failures.
If at this point you are thinking to yourself that this all seems very simple and obvious - you are of course perfectly correct. But these steps are so simple and obvious that they are usually over looked - and the result is a 70% failure rate.
Stephen Warrilow: www.strategies-for-managing-change.com
Any major business initiative or venture that fails to identify and quantify the impact on those people most affected by it carries a high risk of failure.
The numbers may make sense but have the political and cultural factors been assessed?
There are several reasons why this is often not addressed: first and foremost because the focus is on getting the deal done; secondly because a corporate culture is hard to see (especially if you are in it) and this is compounded by the fact that there is often more than one culture, and finally because it is hard to talk about.
And yet.... the price of failure comes high!
The reason why understanding your cultures is so important is that they are the single biggest determinant of how people in your organisation will behave - and especially in the context of a step change.
I have developed a diagnostic process called EEMap(c). This process allows a company to test the impact of a proposed business initiative or venture on those people most affected by it, to identify why it may fail and to establish precisely what has got to be done to make it a success.
Principal benefits are that it is low tech and simple to understand and apply, it involves staff at all levels and enables them to articulate difficult issues in a non-confrontational way, and it can be undertaken quickly and before large sums of money are irrevocably committed to the venture or initiative
There are three phases to the EEMap process: -
* Situation Analysis - that defines a cultural frame work for the company and will also identify all of the significant subcultures within the company that will assist or resist progress towards the business objectives of the proposed venture.
* Gap Analysis -plots the positions of key entities within the company and highlights the gaps between this and where the directors say or think the company is, and where they want to be.
* Resolution -shows the tasks, steps and processes that have to be undertaken. All implications, issues and exposures are analysed, categorised and prioritised across all functional areas impacted by the proposed venture.
In this planning process there are no fixed parameters as to who should or shouldn't be included - it may be conducted with just a very small senior management team comprising 2 or 3 people - or extended to include a wider cross section of management and staff.
The process is designed to:
1. Make you think deeply about your proposed change;
2. To understand as fully as possible the impact it is likely to have, and
3. To work out clearly exactly how you are going to reap the benefits from the change.
If all this seems like a lot of work - yes it is! I won't deny that this process can be time consuming - but it will ensure that you dramatically increase your chances of success - and as a by-product save you an inestimable amount of time, hassle and money in the future.
Alternatively, do what most organisations do - go ahead and skip all of this - dive straight into a project or task level implementation of your good idea - and considerably increase your chances of joining the failures.
If at this point you are thinking to yourself that this all seems very simple and obvious - you are of course perfectly correct. But these steps are so simple and obvious that they are usually over looked - and the result is a 70% failure rate.
Stephen Warrilow: www.strategies-for-managing-change.com
Key roles in a successful change intiative
A successful change initiative results from a clear understanding of the key roles that are needed to make it possible.
Regardless of the size of your organisation and whatever approach you are adopting, there are clear lessons to be learned and benefited from the programme management based approach to running a step change initiative.
In the organisation structure of a programme based approach there are three primary roles:
(1) In any change initiative someone has to fulfil the role of leadership and needs to be seen to be consistently the driving force throughout the initiative. That person also needs to be ultimately accountability for the change initiative. In a programme this will be the Programme Director.
The Programme Director owns the programme and therefore is ultimately personally accountable for the success of the Programme.
So this is not simply a titular role, the individual appointed must be empowered to direct the Programme effectively - capable of doing so - and seen to be doing so.
Without this role being fulfilled - it just simply will not happen!
(2) The second role is fairly commonly understood - the person with responsibility for day-to-day management of the initiative, its risks, issues, conflicts, priorities, communications, and ensuring delivery of the new capabilities.
However, what is not so commonly understood is that this role is more - far more -than that of a project manager.
In a programme this is the Programme Manager. This role has responsibility for the wider dimensions of the change initiative - particularly the management of the people impacts and all other broader strategic and operational aspects that have a bearing on the ultimate success of the initiative.
(3) The third role is less often fulfilled outside of programme management circles. This is the role with responsibility for actually realising [or achieving] the organisational benefits of the step change initiative - namely the Business Change Manager.
[N.B. This role within a programme management context is not to be confused with the business process improvement focus of a business change manager in a company with a project management culture that has no awareness or practise of programme management.]
There is a fundamental difference between the delivery of a new capability and actually realising measurable benefits as a result of implementing that capability.
The programme management approach recognises this difference in the complementary roles of Programme Manager and Business Change Manager.
The Programme Manager is responsible for delivering the capability; whereas the Business Change Manager is responsible for realising the resultant benefits through the integration of the new capabilities into the business operations.
This is so often overlooked. Partly because the whole idea of clearly defined and documented, measurable benefits is in itself overlooked and also because it so often assumed that simply completing projects and delivery new capabilities will of itself deliver the benefit - which of course it usually doesn't - as is reflected in the 70% failure rate of all change initiatives.
Each of these 3 roles may be a full-time role or a part-time role. The deciding factors are the scale and complexity of the step change you are seeking to implement and the size and complexity of your organisation.
The amount of time allocated to each role is at this stage very secondary to the fact that each role is recognised and defined and undertaken by a person with the appropriate skill, and personal authority to exercise the role. What is of paramount importance is that somebody understands and owns the execution of each role - whether it takes them 10 minutes per day or all day every day.
The change initiative will almost certainly NOT succeed, if these roles and the processes inherent in the execution of these roles are not fulfilled.
Stephen Warrilow: www.strategies-for-managing-change.com
Regardless of the size of your organisation and whatever approach you are adopting, there are clear lessons to be learned and benefited from the programme management based approach to running a step change initiative.
In the organisation structure of a programme based approach there are three primary roles:
(1) In any change initiative someone has to fulfil the role of leadership and needs to be seen to be consistently the driving force throughout the initiative. That person also needs to be ultimately accountability for the change initiative. In a programme this will be the Programme Director.
The Programme Director owns the programme and therefore is ultimately personally accountable for the success of the Programme.
So this is not simply a titular role, the individual appointed must be empowered to direct the Programme effectively - capable of doing so - and seen to be doing so.
Without this role being fulfilled - it just simply will not happen!
(2) The second role is fairly commonly understood - the person with responsibility for day-to-day management of the initiative, its risks, issues, conflicts, priorities, communications, and ensuring delivery of the new capabilities.
However, what is not so commonly understood is that this role is more - far more -than that of a project manager.
In a programme this is the Programme Manager. This role has responsibility for the wider dimensions of the change initiative - particularly the management of the people impacts and all other broader strategic and operational aspects that have a bearing on the ultimate success of the initiative.
(3) The third role is less often fulfilled outside of programme management circles. This is the role with responsibility for actually realising [or achieving] the organisational benefits of the step change initiative - namely the Business Change Manager.
[N.B. This role within a programme management context is not to be confused with the business process improvement focus of a business change manager in a company with a project management culture that has no awareness or practise of programme management.]
There is a fundamental difference between the delivery of a new capability and actually realising measurable benefits as a result of implementing that capability.
The programme management approach recognises this difference in the complementary roles of Programme Manager and Business Change Manager.
The Programme Manager is responsible for delivering the capability; whereas the Business Change Manager is responsible for realising the resultant benefits through the integration of the new capabilities into the business operations.
This is so often overlooked. Partly because the whole idea of clearly defined and documented, measurable benefits is in itself overlooked and also because it so often assumed that simply completing projects and delivery new capabilities will of itself deliver the benefit - which of course it usually doesn't - as is reflected in the 70% failure rate of all change initiatives.
Each of these 3 roles may be a full-time role or a part-time role. The deciding factors are the scale and complexity of the step change you are seeking to implement and the size and complexity of your organisation.
The amount of time allocated to each role is at this stage very secondary to the fact that each role is recognised and defined and undertaken by a person with the appropriate skill, and personal authority to exercise the role. What is of paramount importance is that somebody understands and owns the execution of each role - whether it takes them 10 minutes per day or all day every day.
The change initiative will almost certainly NOT succeed, if these roles and the processes inherent in the execution of these roles are not fulfilled.
Stephen Warrilow: www.strategies-for-managing-change.com
Change management methodologies - what works?
What are the practical approaches to implementing change that deliver results and reap the benefits?
Change management is all about process and people - ultimately it's all about people and processes that work for people. So of all the current change management models theories and ideas, knowing how to create a step change initiative that addresses this and that actually delivers the benefits - is the only thing that really matters.
So, in order to be able to do this, it needs to:
- Be holistic and take a wide perspective.
- Focus you on addressing issues and aspects that otherwise get overlooked.
- [Most importantly] address the people impacts and issues arising as a direct and indirect result of your change initiative.
In considering any step change initiative - in any organisation, in any sector and any location, we need to be asking and seeking answers to these simple questions:
- How am I going to manage all this so that it happens and I succeed?
- How's it going to be different when I've made the change?
- Why am I doing this - how's it going to benefit me?
- How will I know it's benefited me?
- Who's it going to affect and how will they react?
- What can I do to get them "on side"?
- What steps do I have to take to make the changes and get the benefit?
- What are the risks and issues that I'll have to face?
Given that the people aspects of change is the overwhelming issue - it is interesting to see that the concept of an emotional journey through a recognisable path of reactions and responses has been recognised and factored in to all modern models of how to manage change. So clearly, taking into account the psychological impacts of change and management of the transitions is key to successfully managing a step change.
And this can only be consistently achieved by addressing all of the key factors that will make it possible. In my view the programme management based model addresses all of these critical areas by focusing on a holistic approach that takes full account of these people issues.
The programme processes of establishing a blueprint of the changed organisation, with clearly defined benefits of change, and thorough attention to the stakeholder mapping and analysis will facilitate the creation of detailed communication strategy that addresses key stakeholder concerns.
Here are the key components of a programme-based approach to leading a step change - as they naturally arise from the answers to the original basic questions that any step change initiative needs to address:
(1) Programme organisation structure - "How am I going to manage [or lead!] all this so that it happens and I succeed?"
(2) Blueprint - "Why am I doing this - how's it going to be different?"
(3) Benefit profile & management - "How will I know it's benefited me?"
(4) Stakeholder map - "Who's it going to affect and how will they react?"
(5) Communications strategy - "What can I do to get them 'on side'?"
(6) Programme plan and project portfolio - "What steps do I have to take to make the changes and get the benefit of this change?"
(7) Risk log and risk management - "What could go wrong - what are the risks and issues I'll have to face?"
Stephen Warrilow: www.strategies-for-managing-change.com
Change management is all about process and people - ultimately it's all about people and processes that work for people. So of all the current change management models theories and ideas, knowing how to create a step change initiative that addresses this and that actually delivers the benefits - is the only thing that really matters.
So, in order to be able to do this, it needs to:
- Be holistic and take a wide perspective.
- Focus you on addressing issues and aspects that otherwise get overlooked.
- [Most importantly] address the people impacts and issues arising as a direct and indirect result of your change initiative.
In considering any step change initiative - in any organisation, in any sector and any location, we need to be asking and seeking answers to these simple questions:
- How am I going to manage all this so that it happens and I succeed?
- How's it going to be different when I've made the change?
- Why am I doing this - how's it going to benefit me?
- How will I know it's benefited me?
- Who's it going to affect and how will they react?
- What can I do to get them "on side"?
- What steps do I have to take to make the changes and get the benefit?
- What are the risks and issues that I'll have to face?
Given that the people aspects of change is the overwhelming issue - it is interesting to see that the concept of an emotional journey through a recognisable path of reactions and responses has been recognised and factored in to all modern models of how to manage change. So clearly, taking into account the psychological impacts of change and management of the transitions is key to successfully managing a step change.
And this can only be consistently achieved by addressing all of the key factors that will make it possible. In my view the programme management based model addresses all of these critical areas by focusing on a holistic approach that takes full account of these people issues.
The programme processes of establishing a blueprint of the changed organisation, with clearly defined benefits of change, and thorough attention to the stakeholder mapping and analysis will facilitate the creation of detailed communication strategy that addresses key stakeholder concerns.
Here are the key components of a programme-based approach to leading a step change - as they naturally arise from the answers to the original basic questions that any step change initiative needs to address:
(1) Programme organisation structure - "How am I going to manage [or lead!] all this so that it happens and I succeed?"
(2) Blueprint - "Why am I doing this - how's it going to be different?"
(3) Benefit profile & management - "How will I know it's benefited me?"
(4) Stakeholder map - "Who's it going to affect and how will they react?"
(5) Communications strategy - "What can I do to get them 'on side'?"
(6) Programme plan and project portfolio - "What steps do I have to take to make the changes and get the benefit of this change?"
(7) Risk log and risk management - "What could go wrong - what are the risks and issues I'll have to face?"
Stephen Warrilow: www.strategies-for-managing-change.com
Organisational culture - determines how your people will respond to a change initiative
This is a subject that I find tends to get a somewhat polarised reaction whenever I discuss it with directors.
There is either a polite indifference and "...well let's get on with discussing the practical aspects of how we're going to do this?" type of response; or considerable interest then the question: "How can we actually deal with it and change it?".
In both cases there is the feeling that culture is a "soft" intangible subject that is difficult to discuss in specific terms, and in the first response the belief that because we can't see it or really get a handle on it then it's irrelevant.
Can I challenge you now... as you are reading this... how do you feel about the culture(s) of your organisation?
Do you feel that it's an important aspect of your step change initiative - or to be truthful, do you feel that whilst it's an interesting abstraction it's not really THAT big a deal?
There are several key factors that will determine whether you join the long list of 70% failures with your step change initiative - or whether you really do succeed and realise the benefits. Those factors are:
(1) Determining that you are embarking on a step change that sits outside of business as usual and needs to be handled as a specific initiative
(2) The quality of leadership that you provide
(3) Using a programme management based approach to your step change initiative
(4) The thoroughness of your pre programme review and planning process
(5) The extent to which you identify and address the cultural change in your organisation that is required to deliver the step change and the desired business benefit.
Organisational culture is the sum of your organisation's key characteristics, values, and beliefs and is evidenced in actions and behaviour.
In my experience, it is the single biggest determinant of how an individual will behave within a business or organisational environment. It will over-ride education, intelligence and common-sense.
I have seen many senior people in large organisations behave in ways that on occasions defied common sense and the "blindingly obvious" - and they weren't aware of it [or if they were, they certainly weren't letting on!]
It is also a major determinant in how people will react to change and your attempts to apply change management.
"Meaningful change in results requires meaningful change in people, processes or technology; usually all three. The difference between a passing fad and lasting change lies in the extent to which you are able to change people's attitudes and behavior." [Tom O'Dea]
Organisational culture is - in my experience - most effectively changed by basing organisational change on personal change. The rational for this perspective:
The process of change goes through these stages:
People who are undergoing the processes outlined above will be aware of the need for change, and may accept it in principle. But due to "hard wired" resistance to change and the "hidden software" of individual unconscious attitudes they will fall into 1 of 3 categories (usually the first two):
(1) Wanting to be seen to want to do something
(2) Wanting to be seen to be doing something
(3) Wanting to actually do something
Each of us has deeply ingrained within us the instinctive WIFM response to change..."What's in it for me?"
It is only when we see the individual and personal benefit that we will truly accept and embrace a change of business culture.
This does not mean simply: "How can I profit from this?" but can also have the deeper meaning: "How is this consistent with my aspirations, and values and what's ultimately most important to me?"
The effective and successful leader needs to attend to the needs of each and every person impacted by the cultural change.
Restated and put very bluntly - you cannot make a successful step change [and realise the benefits] without changing your organisational culture.
Stephen Warrilow: www.strategies-for-managing-change.com
There is either a polite indifference and "...well let's get on with discussing the practical aspects of how we're going to do this?" type of response; or considerable interest then the question: "How can we actually deal with it and change it?".
In both cases there is the feeling that culture is a "soft" intangible subject that is difficult to discuss in specific terms, and in the first response the belief that because we can't see it or really get a handle on it then it's irrelevant.
Can I challenge you now... as you are reading this... how do you feel about the culture(s) of your organisation?
Do you feel that it's an important aspect of your step change initiative - or to be truthful, do you feel that whilst it's an interesting abstraction it's not really THAT big a deal?
There are several key factors that will determine whether you join the long list of 70% failures with your step change initiative - or whether you really do succeed and realise the benefits. Those factors are:
(1) Determining that you are embarking on a step change that sits outside of business as usual and needs to be handled as a specific initiative
(2) The quality of leadership that you provide
(3) Using a programme management based approach to your step change initiative
(4) The thoroughness of your pre programme review and planning process
(5) The extent to which you identify and address the cultural change in your organisation that is required to deliver the step change and the desired business benefit.
Organisational culture is the sum of your organisation's key characteristics, values, and beliefs and is evidenced in actions and behaviour.
- There are usually sub-cultures [often many] within any organisation
- It is frequently "invisible" to those within it
- It filters and distorts data received via the organisation - in line with the beliefs and values etc stored within it
- It holds the "hidden software" that will determine how the organisation behaves
- It determines what it focuses on
- It is the source of the "hard-wired" resistance to change
- The successful "reprogramming" of it is critical for a successful change programme
In my experience, it is the single biggest determinant of how an individual will behave within a business or organisational environment. It will over-ride education, intelligence and common-sense.
I have seen many senior people in large organisations behave in ways that on occasions defied common sense and the "blindingly obvious" - and they weren't aware of it [or if they were, they certainly weren't letting on!]
It is also a major determinant in how people will react to change and your attempts to apply change management.
"Meaningful change in results requires meaningful change in people, processes or technology; usually all three. The difference between a passing fad and lasting change lies in the extent to which you are able to change people's attitudes and behavior." [Tom O'Dea]
Organisational culture is - in my experience - most effectively changed by basing organisational change on personal change. The rational for this perspective:
- An organisation can be regarded as a "macro individual"
- An organisation comprises individuals
- An organisation is transformed by transforming individuals
The process of change goes through these stages:
- Understand the business culture(s) - a process of cognition, to
- Be able to communicate and articulate the business culture and how we want to change it - and have the language and framework to do so, and
- Have the appropriate tools, techniques and processes to make the changes.
People who are undergoing the processes outlined above will be aware of the need for change, and may accept it in principle. But due to "hard wired" resistance to change and the "hidden software" of individual unconscious attitudes they will fall into 1 of 3 categories (usually the first two):
(1) Wanting to be seen to want to do something
(2) Wanting to be seen to be doing something
(3) Wanting to actually do something
Each of us has deeply ingrained within us the instinctive WIFM response to change..."What's in it for me?"
It is only when we see the individual and personal benefit that we will truly accept and embrace a change of business culture.
This does not mean simply: "How can I profit from this?" but can also have the deeper meaning: "How is this consistent with my aspirations, and values and what's ultimately most important to me?"
The effective and successful leader needs to attend to the needs of each and every person impacted by the cultural change.
Restated and put very bluntly - you cannot make a successful step change [and realise the benefits] without changing your organisational culture.
Stephen Warrilow: www.strategies-for-managing-change.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)