The ADKAR change model was first published by Prosci in 1998. Prosci is the recognised leader in business process design and change management research, and is the world's largest provider of change management and reengineering toolkits and benchmarking information.
Prosci's own research shows that problems with the people dimension of change is the most commonly cited reason for project failures.
And in terms of change management, study after study shows that 70% of all business initiatives where there is a significant change element [which is virtually all of them!] fail to realise the envisaged benefits.
Summary of the ADKAR model
It is based on 2 basic ideas:
(1) It is people who change, not organisations.
(2) Successful change occurs when individual change matches the stages of organisational change.
For successful change to occur at the individual level people need to move through each of these stages:
- Awareness of the need for change
- Desire to make the change happen
- Knowledge about how to change
- Ability to implement new skills and behaviours
- Reinforcement to retain the change once it has been made
For organisational change to be successful, these individual changes need to progress at or close to the same rate of progress through the business dimension of change.
Prosci define the business dimension of change as including these typical project elements:
- Business need or opportunity is identified
- Project is defined (scope and objectives)
- Business solution is designed (new processes, systems and organizational structure)
- New processes and systems are developed
- Solution is implemented into the organization
Evaluation of the AKBAR model
There are 2 quite different streams of thought that have shaped the practise of change management.
(1) The engineer's approach to business improvement with the focus on business process.
(2) The psychologist's approach to understanding human responses to change with the focus on people.
The single biggest reason for the astonishingly high 70% failure rate of ALL business change initiatives has been the over-emphasis on process rather than people - 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.
In my view their ADKAR model reflects the BPR background of Prosci and the engineers approach to business improvement, this is quite apparent in the language and tone of their description of the model and with their emphasis on management and process alone.
The clear strength of the model is that provides a useful management checklist of the phases of the transition.
The weaknesses, in my view, are as follows, the ADKAR model:
(1) Fails to distinguish between "incremental change" and "step change"
If the change involves any of these following factors then it will definitely need to be handled as a "step change" and treated as a specific initiative that sits outside of business as usual. The factors are: complexity, size, scope and priority.
The ADKAR model is, in my view, suited to incremental change and is an effective management checklist. But it misses out far too much to be fully effective in a step change initiative.
(2) Fails to distinguish between the roles and functions of leadership as well as management
Whilst the very definitions change management and project and programme management emphasise the management aspect [and of course this is important] much of the cause of the 70% failure rate in change initiatives is directly attributable to a lack of leadership... Leadership that sees the bigger picture - that ensures that people will follow - and the discipline of a programme management approach provides the tools and processes to facilitate that.
A step change initiative needs to be led - and it needs to be seen to be led.
(3) Ignores the need for leadership to address the emotional dimension
The transition between stage one of the ADKAR model - an awareness of the need for change and stage two - the desire to participate and support the change can be massive - especially in a step change.
One of the main points that William Bridges makes in his book "The Way of Transition " is that transition is not the same as change. Change is what happens to you. Transition is what you experience.
Many thought leaders in the world of change management and change leadership are now speaking vociferously about the importance of the emotional dimension of leadership and the need to address the human dimension of change.
So to summarise, in Bridges' own words: "A change can work only if the people affected by it can get through the transition it causes successfully."
(4) Fails to see the macro level of programme management
Steps three to five of the AKBAR model are about knowledge of how to change, ability to implement change and reinforcement - making change stick, and these all relate to one of the biggest issues re implementing change - which boils down to: translating vision and strategy into actionable steps.
The traditional project approach referred to by the AKBAR model - sees it as a set of tasks which 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.
There is an important distinction between the micro level and the macro level perspectives of change management - and which the AKBAR fails to recognise.
At the macro level the root cause of this is lack of clarity and lack of communication about the people aspects of how to manage change - and even more fundamentally - the lack of a language and contextual framework to articulate and manage the necessary processes of change that will work for people. At this level, a major part of the solution to this lies in employing a programme management approach to change, and this is because it is holistic and takes far more account of the many dimensions overlooked by the narrow scope of a project management led approach.
At the micro level, delivering a strategy and changing a culture requires hands-on detailed management - micro management on occasions - in the specifics of how to do it - especially during the early stages. So at this operational level people need to be enabled and supported to develop the capabilities to deliver your strategy and become what you want them to become [or as close to that as is realistically possible].
Pages
This blog is "home" to the various articles I have published online based on material on my website
Showing newest 24 of 28 posts from October 2009. Show older posts
Showing newest 24 of 28 posts from October 2009. Show older posts
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Barriers to Effective Communication in Change Management - But Do They Feel What You Are Saying?
The single biggest barrier to effective communication in a change management situation is quite simply the disconnection between the change leader and those who are or will be impacted by the change.
Failure reasons in change management are many and varied and well documented. Staggeringly 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.
Any major business initiative or venture where the business leaders fail to identify and quantify the impact on those people most affected by the change carries a high risk of failure.
The underlying root cause of this catastrophic statistic is the failure by change leaders to take full account of the impact of the change on those people who are going to be most impacted by it. And yet.... the price of failure comes so high!
So, to any business leaders reading this, I ask you:
"The numbers may make sense, the business case is sound, the 'synergies' may look sweet, but have you assessed the human, political and cultural factors? Have you taken into account the human impact? Have you made the connection between the human impact and your bottom line?"
There are several reasons why this is often not addressed: first and foremost because the focus is on the business logic; secondly because corporate cultures are hard to see, and finally because this aspect of change is seen as "soft", intangible and unquantifiable and by implication not really worthy of detailed scrutiny.
Just as an illustration of this point in the context of M&A, a study of 40 British companies [Cartright and Cooper 1995] reported that all 40 conducted a detailed financial and legal audit of the company they intended to acquire, but that not even one of these same companies made any attempt to carry out an audit of the company's human resources and culture to assess the challenges concerning integration of the organization they were acquiring.
Yet, I find all of this strange given the colossal financial cost and shareholder value destruction that is the direct result of this failure.
5 proven barriers to effective workplace communication in change management
So, if you really want to get it wrong - here's what to do in 5 simple steps:
(1) Lack of clarity of message - don't tell them what lies behind the change and don't sell the problem before you try to sell the solution. Use jargon, plenty of it and take a long time telling them. Oh and to really make this one stick, don't tell them how it's going to be different after the change - just keep telling them how its all about the values, mission and vision.
(2) Absence of emotional resonance in your message - the emotional tone and delivery of your message should clearly indicate that you as senior management haven't given a second thought to the real impact this is going to have on them. Don't tell what they're going to lose or have to let go of. And to reinforce that point make very clear by your tone that you don't care and that that dimension never crossed your mind.
(3) In-accurate targeting - make sure you don't reach the right people with the right message at the right time. Most importantly, never address the "what's in it for me" question, and totally disregard the psychological and emotional transitions they will have to go through in adjusting to your change.
(4) Timing schedule - why waste valuable senior management time keeping your people fully in the picture? Keep them in the dark and keep them guessing.
(5) Feedback process - two-way communication is something you can pay lip service to. Sure go through the motions, but rest easy in the comfortable complacency of your senior management certainty that knows best ["that's what we're paid for isn't it?"]
If you follow these steps you will be in good company as you almost certainly join the illustrious 70% club.
Excuse the lateral thinking for a moment - but can you imagine civil engineers or construction companies or the people who build nuclear power stations - working on the same basis - where a 70% failure rate was accepted? Can you?
So why on earth should the world of business be any different? Why does this bother me? Quite simply, it bothers me because of the very considerable, unnecessary, and totally avoidable human cost.
Failure reasons in change management are many and varied and well documented. Staggeringly 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.
Any major business initiative or venture where the business leaders fail to identify and quantify the impact on those people most affected by the change carries a high risk of failure.
The underlying root cause of this catastrophic statistic is the failure by change leaders to take full account of the impact of the change on those people who are going to be most impacted by it. And yet.... the price of failure comes so high!
So, to any business leaders reading this, I ask you:
"The numbers may make sense, the business case is sound, the 'synergies' may look sweet, but have you assessed the human, political and cultural factors? Have you taken into account the human impact? Have you made the connection between the human impact and your bottom line?"
There are several reasons why this is often not addressed: first and foremost because the focus is on the business logic; secondly because corporate cultures are hard to see, and finally because this aspect of change is seen as "soft", intangible and unquantifiable and by implication not really worthy of detailed scrutiny.
Just as an illustration of this point in the context of M&A, a study of 40 British companies [Cartright and Cooper 1995] reported that all 40 conducted a detailed financial and legal audit of the company they intended to acquire, but that not even one of these same companies made any attempt to carry out an audit of the company's human resources and culture to assess the challenges concerning integration of the organization they were acquiring.
Yet, I find all of this strange given the colossal financial cost and shareholder value destruction that is the direct result of this failure.
5 proven barriers to effective workplace communication in change management
So, if you really want to get it wrong - here's what to do in 5 simple steps:
(1) Lack of clarity of message - don't tell them what lies behind the change and don't sell the problem before you try to sell the solution. Use jargon, plenty of it and take a long time telling them. Oh and to really make this one stick, don't tell them how it's going to be different after the change - just keep telling them how its all about the values, mission and vision.
(2) Absence of emotional resonance in your message - the emotional tone and delivery of your message should clearly indicate that you as senior management haven't given a second thought to the real impact this is going to have on them. Don't tell what they're going to lose or have to let go of. And to reinforce that point make very clear by your tone that you don't care and that that dimension never crossed your mind.
(3) In-accurate targeting - make sure you don't reach the right people with the right message at the right time. Most importantly, never address the "what's in it for me" question, and totally disregard the psychological and emotional transitions they will have to go through in adjusting to your change.
(4) Timing schedule - why waste valuable senior management time keeping your people fully in the picture? Keep them in the dark and keep them guessing.
(5) Feedback process - two-way communication is something you can pay lip service to. Sure go through the motions, but rest easy in the comfortable complacency of your senior management certainty that knows best ["that's what we're paid for isn't it?"]
If you follow these steps you will be in good company as you almost certainly join the illustrious 70% club.
Excuse the lateral thinking for a moment - but can you imagine civil engineers or construction companies or the people who build nuclear power stations - working on the same basis - where a 70% failure rate was accepted? Can you?
So why on earth should the world of business be any different? Why does this bother me? Quite simply, it bothers me because of the very considerable, unnecessary, and totally avoidable human cost.
Managing Change in the Workplace - 4 Key Steps to Incremental Change
In managing change in the workplace it is extremely important to draw the distinction between "incremental change" and "step change".
Whilst the broad principles of leading and managing change are universal it is very important to establish very early on whether or not what you are proposing can be regarded as "incremental change" and realistically can be accomplished within the constraints of "Business As Usual", or whether it is a "step change" and needs to be handled as a specific initiative - with the appropriate level of senior sponsorship and practical support of a structured programme management based process.
In this article, I am going to address managing change in the workplace as incremental change, that is, change within the context of business as usual.
Given that the single biggest reason for the astonishingly high 70% failure rate of ALL business change initiatives has been the over-emphasis on process rather than people coupled with the failure to take full account of the impact of change on those people who are most impacted by it. So clearly the approach that I am recommending has to address this with processes that work for people.
Here are the 4 key steps to managing incremental change in the workplace:
(1) Clarity in all areas
Before going anywhere with a proposed change you need to have pristine clarity with regard to:
- The business need for the change
- The specifics of the change
- The benefits of the change
- Most importantly the impacts of the change
I recommend that you consider carefully each of the following questions:
- 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 risks and issues do I have to face?
- What steps do I have to take to make the changes and get the benefit?
- How am I going to manage all this so that it happens and I succeed?
(2) Consistent leadership
Change management guru John Kotter suggests that for change to be successful, 75% of a company's management needs to "buy into" the change. So convincing people that the change is necessary is extremely important.
This will require strong leadership and visible support from key people within your organization. Managing change isn't enough - you have to lead it.
So managing change in the workplace also requires leadership that is visible and leadership that is consistent in all aspects of the way in which you lead the change as well as how you manage the situation, handle the communication, and ensure the realisation of the benefits of the change.
The single biggest aspect of your leadership will be how you address the emotional rather than the rational aspects of the change.
Many thought leaders in the world of change management and change leadership are now speaking vociferously about the importance of the emotional dimension of leadership and the need to address the human dimension of change.
Leadership thought leader and management guru William Bridges [who focuses on the emotional and psychological impact and the transition aspects of change] offers these 3 simple questions:
What is changing? - Put together a short clear statement of under 60 seconds duration that summarises why the change is necessary and your intentions - what organisational benefit you hope to realise.
What will actually be different because of the change? - Tell them exactly and precisely where and how things will be different after the change.
Who's going to lose what? - Don't "gloss over" or attempt to minimise or trivialise what they will lose and have to let go of. Be direct, honest and empathic in your truthful recognition of what the impact of your change will mean for them.
You will gain more respect and minimise mistrust by being truthful. This prepares the ground for the practical hands on management support that you will be providing to translate your "change concept" into a tangible organisational benefit.
(3) Constant communication
You can never "over communicate" in leading and managing a change situation and especially with regard to what is happening or not happening and why.
This is also a communication process that listens actively and demonstrates to people that you have thought through the impacts of the change on them, and that you are prepared to work with them through the transition, and that you will help make it work for them.
In terms of the emotional resonance aspect of your communications, remember Martin Luther King who did not stand up in front of the Lincoln Memorial and say: "I have a great strategy" and illustrate it with 10 good reasons why it was a good strategy. He said those immortal words: "I have a dream," and then he proceeded to show the people what his dream was - he illustrated his picture of the future and did so in a way that had high emotional impact.
5 guiding principles of a good change management communication process
- Clarity of message - to ensure relevance and recognition
- Resonance of message - the emotional tone and delivery of the message
- Accurate targeting - to reach the right people with the right message
- Timing schedule - to achieve timely targeting of messages
- Feedback process - to ensure genuine two way communication
(4) Capability and resources
This is about ensuring that your people have the full resources and capabilities they need to support them thro the change. This all boils down to: translating vision and strategy into actionable steps.
As leader of the change, you now face the equally if not more difficult challenge of getting the staff to deliver your new change idea and achieve the organisational benefits that you anticipate.
The trouble is that 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 practical assistance.
So this means that delivering an incremental change requires hands-on detailed management [micro management on occasions] in the specifics of how to do it, especially during the early stages.
Whilst the broad principles of leading and managing change are universal it is very important to establish very early on whether or not what you are proposing can be regarded as "incremental change" and realistically can be accomplished within the constraints of "Business As Usual", or whether it is a "step change" and needs to be handled as a specific initiative - with the appropriate level of senior sponsorship and practical support of a structured programme management based process.
In this article, I am going to address managing change in the workplace as incremental change, that is, change within the context of business as usual.
Given that the single biggest reason for the astonishingly high 70% failure rate of ALL business change initiatives has been the over-emphasis on process rather than people coupled with the failure to take full account of the impact of change on those people who are most impacted by it. So clearly the approach that I am recommending has to address this with processes that work for people.
Here are the 4 key steps to managing incremental change in the workplace:
(1) Clarity in all areas
Before going anywhere with a proposed change you need to have pristine clarity with regard to:
- The business need for the change
- The specifics of the change
- The benefits of the change
- Most importantly the impacts of the change
I recommend that you consider carefully each of the following questions:
- 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 risks and issues do I have to face?
- What steps do I have to take to make the changes and get the benefit?
- How am I going to manage all this so that it happens and I succeed?
(2) Consistent leadership
Change management guru John Kotter suggests that for change to be successful, 75% of a company's management needs to "buy into" the change. So convincing people that the change is necessary is extremely important.
This will require strong leadership and visible support from key people within your organization. Managing change isn't enough - you have to lead it.
So managing change in the workplace also requires leadership that is visible and leadership that is consistent in all aspects of the way in which you lead the change as well as how you manage the situation, handle the communication, and ensure the realisation of the benefits of the change.
The single biggest aspect of your leadership will be how you address the emotional rather than the rational aspects of the change.
Many thought leaders in the world of change management and change leadership are now speaking vociferously about the importance of the emotional dimension of leadership and the need to address the human dimension of change.
Leadership thought leader and management guru William Bridges [who focuses on the emotional and psychological impact and the transition aspects of change] offers these 3 simple questions:
What is changing? - Put together a short clear statement of under 60 seconds duration that summarises why the change is necessary and your intentions - what organisational benefit you hope to realise.
What will actually be different because of the change? - Tell them exactly and precisely where and how things will be different after the change.
Who's going to lose what? - Don't "gloss over" or attempt to minimise or trivialise what they will lose and have to let go of. Be direct, honest and empathic in your truthful recognition of what the impact of your change will mean for them.
You will gain more respect and minimise mistrust by being truthful. This prepares the ground for the practical hands on management support that you will be providing to translate your "change concept" into a tangible organisational benefit.
(3) Constant communication
You can never "over communicate" in leading and managing a change situation and especially with regard to what is happening or not happening and why.
This is also a communication process that listens actively and demonstrates to people that you have thought through the impacts of the change on them, and that you are prepared to work with them through the transition, and that you will help make it work for them.
In terms of the emotional resonance aspect of your communications, remember Martin Luther King who did not stand up in front of the Lincoln Memorial and say: "I have a great strategy" and illustrate it with 10 good reasons why it was a good strategy. He said those immortal words: "I have a dream," and then he proceeded to show the people what his dream was - he illustrated his picture of the future and did so in a way that had high emotional impact.
5 guiding principles of a good change management communication process
- Clarity of message - to ensure relevance and recognition
- Resonance of message - the emotional tone and delivery of the message
- Accurate targeting - to reach the right people with the right message
- Timing schedule - to achieve timely targeting of messages
- Feedback process - to ensure genuine two way communication
(4) Capability and resources
This is about ensuring that your people have the full resources and capabilities they need to support them thro the change. This all boils down to: translating vision and strategy into actionable steps.
As leader of the change, you now face the equally if not more difficult challenge of getting the staff to deliver your new change idea and achieve the organisational benefits that you anticipate.
The trouble is that 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 practical assistance.
So this means that delivering an incremental change requires hands-on detailed management [micro management on occasions] in the specifics of how to do it, especially during the early stages.
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.
Change Management Models - Do They Help and If So How?
The people aspects of change is the overwhelming issue
Change management models have clearly evolved from the days of Kurt Lewin's freeze phases model which was very much a product and reflection of the industrial age - with the emphasis on command control imposed from the top down.
Similarly, even Michael Hammer ["Re-engineering the Corporation"] - the arch proponent of the process led approach to change and business improvement - revised his opinion: "I don't regret saying anything; it's more what I left out. In particular, the human side is much harder than the technology side and harder than the process side. It's the overwhelming issue."
Psychological impacts of change and managing the transitions
Since Kubler Ross, 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 change management. William Bridges has taken this a stage further with his model that focuses on transitions and the psychological impacts of organisational change and that speaks of developing a culture that embraces change.
Clearly people react at different paces and levels to change and whatever change model is adopted, this needs to be given serious attention.
Many of the more recent change management models place great emphasis on the need for determining the need for change, articulating the desired future and the use of some form of transitional model. In my opinion it is William Bridges - who recognises that it is people who have to carry out change and with his clear emphasis and understanding of what change does to employees [and what they do to the organisation] - who really was the first "management guru" to provide any real sense of the emotional impact of change and what can be done to keep it from disrupting the entire organization.
Any change management models theories or concepts that directly address the people issues, has particular resonance and practical relevance in the current climate and adds values to our understanding of strategies for managing change.
The programme management based model
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 the people issues.
So, 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.
Change management models have clearly evolved from the days of Kurt Lewin's freeze phases model which was very much a product and reflection of the industrial age - with the emphasis on command control imposed from the top down.
Similarly, even Michael Hammer ["Re-engineering the Corporation"] - the arch proponent of the process led approach to change and business improvement - revised his opinion: "I don't regret saying anything; it's more what I left out. In particular, the human side is much harder than the technology side and harder than the process side. It's the overwhelming issue."
Psychological impacts of change and managing the transitions
Since Kubler Ross, 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 change management. William Bridges has taken this a stage further with his model that focuses on transitions and the psychological impacts of organisational change and that speaks of developing a culture that embraces change.
Clearly people react at different paces and levels to change and whatever change model is adopted, this needs to be given serious attention.
Many of the more recent change management models place great emphasis on the need for determining the need for change, articulating the desired future and the use of some form of transitional model. In my opinion it is William Bridges - who recognises that it is people who have to carry out change and with his clear emphasis and understanding of what change does to employees [and what they do to the organisation] - who really was the first "management guru" to provide any real sense of the emotional impact of change and what can be done to keep it from disrupting the entire organization.
Any change management models theories or concepts that directly address the people issues, has particular resonance and practical relevance in the current climate and adds values to our understanding of strategies for managing change.
The programme management based model
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 the people issues.
So, 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.
Strategies For Managing Change - How to Manage and Mitigate Risks and Issues
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. So risk management and mitigation is clearly an extremely important aspect of the change management process.
A programme management based approach to change leadership and change management will cause you to clearly think through all of the key aspects of how you are going to deliver your vision. So as you think about and plan your proposed change - these are the 8 questions that will set you on the right course:
(1) How's it going to be different when I've made the change?
(2) Why am I doing this - how's it going to benefit me?
(3) How will I know it's benefited me?
(4) Who's it going to affect and how will they react?
(5) What can I do to get them "on side"?
(6) What are the risks and issues that I'll have to face?
(7) What steps do I take to make the changes and get the benefit?
(8) How am I going to manage all this so that it happens and I succeed?
The risk question comes in at number six because if you carefully work through the earlier questions you will go a long way to anticipating and mitigating a lot of the obvious risks - not least the people related risks and issues.
Creating a simple risk management strategy and risk log
However as you progress through your change initiative, the nature, likelihood and impact of perceived risks will change over the duration of the programme. Also, some risks will become greater as a result of another unforeseen event occurring, and new risks may need to be identified as implementation progresses.
It is extremely useful to take a structured approach to this by creating a simple risk management strategy and reviewing it regularly; and creating, maintaining and updating a "risk log" as risks change. This will shape how you approach the following:
- Allocating responsibilities and processes for risk monitoring and control
- Identifying new risks as they emerge
- Maintaining and updating your risk log
- Assessing risks and developing possible countermeasures
- Prioritising, actioning, controlling, escalating and reporting risks
Of all the strategies for managing change, and leading change, the programme management based approach is the most likely to ensure that you avoid the staggering and needless 70% failure rate.
A programme management based approach to change leadership and change management will cause you to clearly think through all of the key aspects of how you are going to deliver your vision. So as you think about and plan your proposed change - these are the 8 questions that will set you on the right course:
(1) How's it going to be different when I've made the change?
(2) Why am I doing this - how's it going to benefit me?
(3) How will I know it's benefited me?
(4) Who's it going to affect and how will they react?
(5) What can I do to get them "on side"?
(6) What are the risks and issues that I'll have to face?
(7) What steps do I take to make the changes and get the benefit?
(8) How am I going to manage all this so that it happens and I succeed?
The risk question comes in at number six because if you carefully work through the earlier questions you will go a long way to anticipating and mitigating a lot of the obvious risks - not least the people related risks and issues.
Creating a simple risk management strategy and risk log
However as you progress through your change initiative, the nature, likelihood and impact of perceived risks will change over the duration of the programme. Also, some risks will become greater as a result of another unforeseen event occurring, and new risks may need to be identified as implementation progresses.
It is extremely useful to take a structured approach to this by creating a simple risk management strategy and reviewing it regularly; and creating, maintaining and updating a "risk log" as risks change. This will shape how you approach the following:
- Allocating responsibilities and processes for risk monitoring and control
- Identifying new risks as they emerge
- Maintaining and updating your risk log
- Assessing risks and developing possible countermeasures
- Prioritising, actioning, controlling, escalating and reporting risks
Of all the strategies for managing change, and leading change, the programme management based approach is the most likely to ensure that you avoid the staggering and needless 70% failure rate.
Strategies For Managing Change - Your Communication Strategy - Say What You Mean and Mean What You
A good Communication Strategy is at the heart of any successful change management process. The more change there is going to be then the greater the need - and especially about the reasons, the benefits, the plans and proposed effects of that change. It is important that an effective communication strategy is defined and actioned as soon as possible and then properly maintained for the duration of the change management programme.
There are 2 aspects to a change management communication strategy: firstly the balance between information content and emotional resonance; and secondly the stage of the initiative, in other words before the change and during.
The structural and content aspect of your communications
You will benefit greatly from the discipline of a programme-based approach to leading and managing your change initiative, as your communication strategy will be based around the following:
- Stakeholder map and analysis [everyone who is going to be impacted by the change and your assessments of those impacts and their reactions]
- Blueprint [the clear definition and statement of the changed organization]
- Vision statement and pre-programme planning process [the high-level vision and the follow-up pre-planning process to unpack the vision and analyse the impacts]
- Programme plan [the steps that will be taken to make the changes and get the benefits - a schedule of projects and projects and initiatives]
The key FACTUAL questions that your communication strategy need to address
- What are the objectives?
- What are the key messages?
- Who are you trying to reach?
- What information will be communicated?
- When will information be disseminated, and what are the relevant timings?
- How much information will be provided, and to what level of detail?
- What mechanisms will be used to disseminate information?
- How will feedback be encouraged?
- What will be done as a result of feedback?
The key EMOTIONAL questions that your communication strategy need to address
In terms of the emotional resonance aspect of the communications, John Kotter makes the point that great change leaders are great at telling visual stories with high emotional impact. Kotter illustrates this the anecdote of Martin Luther King who did not stand up in front of the Lincoln Memorial and say: "I have a great strategy" and illustrate it with 10 good reasons why it was a good strategy. He said those immortal words: "I have a dream," and then he proceeded to show the people what his dream was - he illustrated his picture of the future and did so in a way that had high emotional impact.
William Bridges focuses on the emotional and psychological impact and aspect of the change - and poses these 3 simple questions:
(1) What is changing? Bridges offers the following guidance - the change leader's communication 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... 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."
(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. 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.
5 guiding principles of a good change management communication strategy
So, in summary the 5 guiding principles of a good change management communication strategy are as follows:
- Clarity of message - to ensure relevance and recognition
- Resonance of message - the emotional tone and delivery of the message
- Accurate targeting - to reach the right people with the right message
- Timing schedule - to achieve timely targeting of messages
- Feedback process - to ensure genuine two way communication
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. This is what a Programme Management based approach to change is all about and why it so important.
There are 2 aspects to a change management communication strategy: firstly the balance between information content and emotional resonance; and secondly the stage of the initiative, in other words before the change and during.
The structural and content aspect of your communications
You will benefit greatly from the discipline of a programme-based approach to leading and managing your change initiative, as your communication strategy will be based around the following:
- Stakeholder map and analysis [everyone who is going to be impacted by the change and your assessments of those impacts and their reactions]
- Blueprint [the clear definition and statement of the changed organization]
- Vision statement and pre-programme planning process [the high-level vision and the follow-up pre-planning process to unpack the vision and analyse the impacts]
- Programme plan [the steps that will be taken to make the changes and get the benefits - a schedule of projects and projects and initiatives]
The key FACTUAL questions that your communication strategy need to address
- What are the objectives?
- What are the key messages?
- Who are you trying to reach?
- What information will be communicated?
- When will information be disseminated, and what are the relevant timings?
- How much information will be provided, and to what level of detail?
- What mechanisms will be used to disseminate information?
- How will feedback be encouraged?
- What will be done as a result of feedback?
The key EMOTIONAL questions that your communication strategy need to address
In terms of the emotional resonance aspect of the communications, John Kotter makes the point that great change leaders are great at telling visual stories with high emotional impact. Kotter illustrates this the anecdote of Martin Luther King who did not stand up in front of the Lincoln Memorial and say: "I have a great strategy" and illustrate it with 10 good reasons why it was a good strategy. He said those immortal words: "I have a dream," and then he proceeded to show the people what his dream was - he illustrated his picture of the future and did so in a way that had high emotional impact.
William Bridges focuses on the emotional and psychological impact and aspect of the change - and poses these 3 simple questions:
(1) What is changing? Bridges offers the following guidance - the change leader's communication 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... 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."
(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. 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.
5 guiding principles of a good change management communication strategy
So, in summary the 5 guiding principles of a good change management communication strategy are as follows:
- Clarity of message - to ensure relevance and recognition
- Resonance of message - the emotional tone and delivery of the message
- Accurate targeting - to reach the right people with the right message
- Timing schedule - to achieve timely targeting of messages
- Feedback process - to ensure genuine two way communication
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. This is what a Programme Management based approach to change is all about and why it so important.
Situational Leadership Theory in Change Management - Different Strokes For Different Folks
Given the catastrophic 70% failure rate of all change management initiatives, the quality of leadership exercised is clearly a significant component in reducing this risk.
In essence, situational leadership theory emphasises 2 areas:
(1) "Different strokes for different folks" - different leadership styles are applicable to different situations
(2) "Cometh the hour cometh the man" - leadership extends potentially to just about everyone in an organisation - at some time
Dr Paul Hersey, who is closely associated with the development of situational leadership theory, suggested in a fairly recent presentation that: "... a situational leader is anyone, anywhere who recognises that influencing behaviour is not an event but a process. The process entails assessing followers' performance in relation to what the leader wants to accomplish and providing the appropriate amounts of guidance and support."
According to change management guru John Kotter "...today's organizations need heroes at every level. To truly succeed in a turbulent world, more than half the workforce needs to step up to the plate in some arena and provide change leadership."
To my mind, the idea that effective leaders change their leadership styles to fit the situation is an expansion of Robert Blake and Jane Mouton's "Managerial Grid" theory, which suggest that the effective leader "moves appropriately" along the spectrum of task versus relationship orientation.
4 Communication Components
According to a recent study [Baker, Brown], successful use of situational leadership relies on effectiveness in four communication components:
- Communicating expectations
- Listening
- Delegating
- Providing feedback
The Hersey and Blanchard Leadership Model takes this all a bit further and introduces the notion that the level of development or maturity of the followers is also something that the leader takes into account.
"Maturity" in this context to do with the preparedness and ability of a person to take responsibility for directing his or her own behaviour in relation to a specific task in a specific situation.
4 Distinct Leadership Styles
Clearly the appropriate leadership style to use in a given situation is going to be determined by the leader's assessment of the maturity level of the followers in that specific situation. The leader will move appropriately long the task-directive versus relationship-supportive spectrum.
Four distinct leadership styles are identified in the Hershey and Blanchard Leadership Model - each reflecting the evolving levels of maturity of the followers:
(1) Directing - the leader is very directive providing clear, specific instructions
(2) Coaching - whilst the leader retains control of decision making, he/she encourages two-way communication and helps build confidence and motivation on the part of his/her people
(3) Supporting - the people no longer need the leader to tell them what to do or to make the decisions - so decision making is shared
(4) Delegating - when the people are ready, willing and able the leader delegates full responsibility to them
Whilst I agree with this style of flexible leadership, I have to say that, in a change management context, extending leadership throughout an organisation in the manner suggested is asking a lot of most organisations as it requires a complete and total change of culture.
Also, all of this is dependent on the supporting framework of change management processes that are derived from adopting a programme-based approach to leading and managing the change.
In essence, situational leadership theory emphasises 2 areas:
(1) "Different strokes for different folks" - different leadership styles are applicable to different situations
(2) "Cometh the hour cometh the man" - leadership extends potentially to just about everyone in an organisation - at some time
Dr Paul Hersey, who is closely associated with the development of situational leadership theory, suggested in a fairly recent presentation that: "... a situational leader is anyone, anywhere who recognises that influencing behaviour is not an event but a process. The process entails assessing followers' performance in relation to what the leader wants to accomplish and providing the appropriate amounts of guidance and support."
According to change management guru John Kotter "...today's organizations need heroes at every level. To truly succeed in a turbulent world, more than half the workforce needs to step up to the plate in some arena and provide change leadership."
To my mind, the idea that effective leaders change their leadership styles to fit the situation is an expansion of Robert Blake and Jane Mouton's "Managerial Grid" theory, which suggest that the effective leader "moves appropriately" along the spectrum of task versus relationship orientation.
4 Communication Components
According to a recent study [Baker, Brown], successful use of situational leadership relies on effectiveness in four communication components:
- Communicating expectations
- Listening
- Delegating
- Providing feedback
The Hersey and Blanchard Leadership Model takes this all a bit further and introduces the notion that the level of development or maturity of the followers is also something that the leader takes into account.
"Maturity" in this context to do with the preparedness and ability of a person to take responsibility for directing his or her own behaviour in relation to a specific task in a specific situation.
4 Distinct Leadership Styles
Clearly the appropriate leadership style to use in a given situation is going to be determined by the leader's assessment of the maturity level of the followers in that specific situation. The leader will move appropriately long the task-directive versus relationship-supportive spectrum.
Four distinct leadership styles are identified in the Hershey and Blanchard Leadership Model - each reflecting the evolving levels of maturity of the followers:
(1) Directing - the leader is very directive providing clear, specific instructions
(2) Coaching - whilst the leader retains control of decision making, he/she encourages two-way communication and helps build confidence and motivation on the part of his/her people
(3) Supporting - the people no longer need the leader to tell them what to do or to make the decisions - so decision making is shared
(4) Delegating - when the people are ready, willing and able the leader delegates full responsibility to them
Whilst I agree with this style of flexible leadership, I have to say that, in a change management context, extending leadership throughout an organisation in the manner suggested is asking a lot of most organisations as it requires a complete and total change of culture.
Also, all of this is dependent on the supporting framework of change management processes that are derived from adopting a programme-based approach to leading and managing the 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.
Leadership Styles in Change Management - The Leader's Mood Drives a Staggering 30% of Performance
How do you provide a change management leadership style that connects with people and motivates them when they are stressed out by the current economic climate?
How do you lead your people through change and identify the most effective strategies for managing change that are appropriate to these difficult conditions?
A new focus on leadership has been defined and articulated by Daniel Goleman - and he calls it "Primal Leadership". This refers to the emotional dimension of leadership - the leader's ability to articulate a message that resonates with their followers' emotional reality and their sense of purpose, and thus motivate them to move in a specific direction.
To my mind this is of considerable interest and relevance to those of us working with companies who are going through change.
Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis & Annie McKee in 2002, first introduced the concept in a book of that name. Their work draws extensively on research into Emotional Intelligence or "EI".
Here are the key themes:
The importance of Primal Leadership
In the current climate of uncertainty people need leadership that offers a measure of re-assurance and certainty of conviction about the direction in which they are being led.
This is important because people cannot work effectively if they are experiencing emotional turbulence. Their ability to get work done depends on their emotions being under control. A leader has to address those often unconscious and unexpressed fears along the way in order to help people keep them under control.
A study of 3,871 executives and their direct reports shows that HOW a leader leads in terms of the emotional resonance they do or don't generate matters for 2 reasons:
(1) A big part of the culture and "general feel" or "emotional tone" of what it is like to work in an organisation is determined to a very large extent by the leader.
(2) The leader's style determines about 70% of the emotional climate which in turns drives 20-30% of business performance.
The leaders emotions infect the organisation - the importance of resonance.
The central finding of EI research is that emotions are essentially contagious, and thus a leader's attitude and energy can "infect" a workplace either for better or for worse.
With this in mind the authors stress the importance of resonance, which is the ability of leaders to perceive and influence the flow of emotions (including motivational states) between themselves and others they work with.
One of the keys to achieving resonance is empathic listening. [See "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" by Stephen Covey]
Self awareness and the 4 building blocks of primal leadership
The 4 building blocks of primal leadership are:
(1) Self-awareness
(2) Self-mastery [or self-management of emotion]
(3) Empathy or social awareness
(4) Relationship management
"Self-awareness is actually the fundamental ability of emotional intelligence, and probably the most ignored in a business setting." Goleman
Emotions are contagious - from the top down
In an interview [with Stephen Bernhut in "Leaders Edge", Ivey Business Journal May/June 2002] Daniel Goleman said:
"First, you have to reach within yourself to find out your own truth, because you can't be resonant if you're clueless, if you're pretending, or if you're just trying to manipulate people."
You have to speak from your heart, and you have to do it in a way that speaks to other people's hearts. So it takes authenticity. And if you can articulate a positive goal, that is, stay optimistic, enthusiastic and motivated in delivering that message, then what you're doing is spreading that message and those moods and predisposition to the people you're talking to. Emotions are contagious, and they are most contagious from the top down, from leader to followers.
Acting as a leader in a way that primes positive emotions in people
In the same interview, Goleman suggests that first of all, you need self-awareness, to know what's happening with your own emotions. You also need to use your self-awareness to sense what's right and what's wrong in a situation, to use your deep values to guide you in what you do from moment to moment.
You need to be able to manage your emotions... and to keep yourself in a positive state, to have a good time with people as well, along with getting the job done. Of course, you also need empathy.
And then finally, you need to put that all into practice by acting as a leader in a way that primes positive emotions in people, because that's the state in which they're going to work best.
In my view this is inspiring stuff and offers deep insight and fresh perspective on key aspects of the leadership of change management.
Properly applied in a change management context, this emphasis on primal leadership is exactly what a people-oriented leadership style needs to deliver when employing the holistic and wide view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
How do you lead your people through change and identify the most effective strategies for managing change that are appropriate to these difficult conditions?
A new focus on leadership has been defined and articulated by Daniel Goleman - and he calls it "Primal Leadership". This refers to the emotional dimension of leadership - the leader's ability to articulate a message that resonates with their followers' emotional reality and their sense of purpose, and thus motivate them to move in a specific direction.
To my mind this is of considerable interest and relevance to those of us working with companies who are going through change.
Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis & Annie McKee in 2002, first introduced the concept in a book of that name. Their work draws extensively on research into Emotional Intelligence or "EI".
Here are the key themes:
The importance of Primal Leadership
In the current climate of uncertainty people need leadership that offers a measure of re-assurance and certainty of conviction about the direction in which they are being led.
This is important because people cannot work effectively if they are experiencing emotional turbulence. Their ability to get work done depends on their emotions being under control. A leader has to address those often unconscious and unexpressed fears along the way in order to help people keep them under control.
A study of 3,871 executives and their direct reports shows that HOW a leader leads in terms of the emotional resonance they do or don't generate matters for 2 reasons:
(1) A big part of the culture and "general feel" or "emotional tone" of what it is like to work in an organisation is determined to a very large extent by the leader.
(2) The leader's style determines about 70% of the emotional climate which in turns drives 20-30% of business performance.
The leaders emotions infect the organisation - the importance of resonance.
The central finding of EI research is that emotions are essentially contagious, and thus a leader's attitude and energy can "infect" a workplace either for better or for worse.
With this in mind the authors stress the importance of resonance, which is the ability of leaders to perceive and influence the flow of emotions (including motivational states) between themselves and others they work with.
One of the keys to achieving resonance is empathic listening. [See "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" by Stephen Covey]
Self awareness and the 4 building blocks of primal leadership
The 4 building blocks of primal leadership are:
(1) Self-awareness
(2) Self-mastery [or self-management of emotion]
(3) Empathy or social awareness
(4) Relationship management
"Self-awareness is actually the fundamental ability of emotional intelligence, and probably the most ignored in a business setting." Goleman
Emotions are contagious - from the top down
In an interview [with Stephen Bernhut in "Leaders Edge", Ivey Business Journal May/June 2002] Daniel Goleman said:
"First, you have to reach within yourself to find out your own truth, because you can't be resonant if you're clueless, if you're pretending, or if you're just trying to manipulate people."
You have to speak from your heart, and you have to do it in a way that speaks to other people's hearts. So it takes authenticity. And if you can articulate a positive goal, that is, stay optimistic, enthusiastic and motivated in delivering that message, then what you're doing is spreading that message and those moods and predisposition to the people you're talking to. Emotions are contagious, and they are most contagious from the top down, from leader to followers.
Acting as a leader in a way that primes positive emotions in people
In the same interview, Goleman suggests that first of all, you need self-awareness, to know what's happening with your own emotions. You also need to use your self-awareness to sense what's right and what's wrong in a situation, to use your deep values to guide you in what you do from moment to moment.
You need to be able to manage your emotions... and to keep yourself in a positive state, to have a good time with people as well, along with getting the job done. Of course, you also need empathy.
And then finally, you need to put that all into practice by acting as a leader in a way that primes positive emotions in people, because that's the state in which they're going to work best.
In my view this is inspiring stuff and offers deep insight and fresh perspective on key aspects of the leadership of change management.
Properly applied in a change management context, this emphasis on primal leadership is exactly what a people-oriented leadership style needs to deliver when employing the holistic and wide view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
Leadership Styles in Change Management - 3 Key Lessons From the Hard Man Who Found His Heart
I am constantly on the look out for interesting, informative stories and illustrations of leadership styles that support successful change management - and especially ones that are people centred as well as process focused.
In the course of recent research I came across the very interesting story of the man of nails who found his heart.
Andy Pearson founding chairman and former CEO of Tricon Global Restaurants Inc. [KFC, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell] has recently undergone a huge change in leadership style. The new Andy Pearson, a man who is now in his mid-70s, has transformed himself into a new kind of boss who majors on inspirational motivation.
Having carved himself a decades-long reputation of ruthless, hard-nosed, numbers obsessed success in corporate America with companies such as Pepsi Co and McKinsey, he now feels that he has arrived at a personal point of change that he feels has universal significance...
Through working with colleagues at Tricom, Pearson experienced a Damascene conversion as he realised the importance of the human heart in driving a company's success - one person at a time - and how this kind of success can't be imposed from the top but must be ignited and nurtured through attention, awareness, recognition, and reward - true inspirational motivation.
Lesson number (1) - People will respond to their leaders efforts to connect with their emotional side
Pearson realised [albeit rather late in life in my view!] that the need for recognition and that the need for approval is a fundamental human drive - and key to inspirational motivation in change management situations
He was also a big enough man [in my view] to change direction and style almost overnight.
Pearson's own re-definition of leadership is as follows:
"Great leaders find a balance between getting results and how they get them."
Lesson number (2) - The need for recognition and approval is a fundamental human drive
He now believes that it's less important to issue orders than it is to seek answers and ideas from below. He sees his job is to listen to the people who work for him and to serve them. He still believes in firing those who don't perform!
"Ultimately," Pearson says, "it's all about having more genuine concern for the other person. There's a big difference between being tough and being tough-minded. There's an important aspect that has to do with humility."
Lesson number (3) - The big leadership difference between being tough and being tough-minded
So Andy Pearson's experience clearly shows that people benefit from a change management leadership style that addresses their emotional side and gives them respect and approval.
Properly applied in a change management context, this is exactly what a people-oriented leadership style will deliver when employing the holistic and wide view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
In the course of recent research I came across the very interesting story of the man of nails who found his heart.
Andy Pearson founding chairman and former CEO of Tricon Global Restaurants Inc. [KFC, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell] has recently undergone a huge change in leadership style. The new Andy Pearson, a man who is now in his mid-70s, has transformed himself into a new kind of boss who majors on inspirational motivation.
Having carved himself a decades-long reputation of ruthless, hard-nosed, numbers obsessed success in corporate America with companies such as Pepsi Co and McKinsey, he now feels that he has arrived at a personal point of change that he feels has universal significance...
Through working with colleagues at Tricom, Pearson experienced a Damascene conversion as he realised the importance of the human heart in driving a company's success - one person at a time - and how this kind of success can't be imposed from the top but must be ignited and nurtured through attention, awareness, recognition, and reward - true inspirational motivation.
Lesson number (1) - People will respond to their leaders efforts to connect with their emotional side
Pearson realised [albeit rather late in life in my view!] that the need for recognition and that the need for approval is a fundamental human drive - and key to inspirational motivation in change management situations
He was also a big enough man [in my view] to change direction and style almost overnight.
Pearson's own re-definition of leadership is as follows:
"Great leaders find a balance between getting results and how they get them."
Lesson number (2) - The need for recognition and approval is a fundamental human drive
He now believes that it's less important to issue orders than it is to seek answers and ideas from below. He sees his job is to listen to the people who work for him and to serve them. He still believes in firing those who don't perform!
"Ultimately," Pearson says, "it's all about having more genuine concern for the other person. There's a big difference between being tough and being tough-minded. There's an important aspect that has to do with humility."
Lesson number (3) - The big leadership difference between being tough and being tough-minded
So Andy Pearson's experience clearly shows that people benefit from a change management leadership style that addresses their emotional side and gives them respect and approval.
Properly applied in a change management context, this is exactly what a people-oriented leadership style will deliver when employing the holistic and wide view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
Leadership Styles in Change Management - The Amazing Story of the Hawthorne Effect
I have long held the view that the successful strategies for managing change and the leadership styles in practical change management that support those strategies are people centric rather than totally process oriented.
Whilst undertaking research for a section of my website I came across a very interesting experiment.
A major business improvement research project was conducted between 1927 and 1932 at the Hawthorne Plant of the Western Electric Company in Cicero, Illinois.
This research project was not about inspirational motivation, or leadership, or change management - but an attempt to examine the physical and environmental influences of the workplace (e.g. brightness of lights, humidity) and later, moved into the psychological aspects (e.g. breaks, group pressure, working hours, managerial leadership).
However, the major finding of the study was a totally unintended and unexpected consequence of the study.
What they found was that almost regardless of the experimental manipulation employed, the production of the workers seemed to improve! This has become known as "The Hawthorne Effect".
Stated simply the discovery was that: people work better together when they are allowed to socially interact with one another and are given supportive attention.
The primary [at the time startling] discovery was that the workplace is a social system. The Hawthorne researchers came to realise that the workplace is a social system made up of interdependent parts.
In summary 3 further general conclusions were drawn from the Hawthorne studies:
(1) Individual production is strongly influenced by social factors - far more so than individual aptitude.
(2) Informal organisation affects productivity - there is "a group life" among the workers - and the relations that supervisors develop with workers tend to influence the manner in which the workers carry out directives.
(3) Work-group norms affect productivity - work groups tend to arrive at norms of what is "a fair day's work".
So the obvious first change management lesson of this is that people benefit from a leadership style that addresses their need for your supportive attention.
Also the second lesson is that in the practice of change management leaders need to recognise and work with and through the informal social structures of the workplace.
Properly applied, this is exactly what a people-oriented leadership style will deliver when employing the holistic and wide view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
And, to ensure that you ARE employing successful strategies for managing change - that are appropriate to your organisation - you need to know how to apply: (a) these people oriented leadership skills, AND (b) how to apply the supporting programme management based processes - to ensure that you avoid the catastrophic 70% failure rate of ALL business change initiatives.
Whilst undertaking research for a section of my website I came across a very interesting experiment.
A major business improvement research project was conducted between 1927 and 1932 at the Hawthorne Plant of the Western Electric Company in Cicero, Illinois.
This research project was not about inspirational motivation, or leadership, or change management - but an attempt to examine the physical and environmental influences of the workplace (e.g. brightness of lights, humidity) and later, moved into the psychological aspects (e.g. breaks, group pressure, working hours, managerial leadership).
However, the major finding of the study was a totally unintended and unexpected consequence of the study.
What they found was that almost regardless of the experimental manipulation employed, the production of the workers seemed to improve! This has become known as "The Hawthorne Effect".
Stated simply the discovery was that: people work better together when they are allowed to socially interact with one another and are given supportive attention.
The primary [at the time startling] discovery was that the workplace is a social system. The Hawthorne researchers came to realise that the workplace is a social system made up of interdependent parts.
In summary 3 further general conclusions were drawn from the Hawthorne studies:
(1) Individual production is strongly influenced by social factors - far more so than individual aptitude.
(2) Informal organisation affects productivity - there is "a group life" among the workers - and the relations that supervisors develop with workers tend to influence the manner in which the workers carry out directives.
(3) Work-group norms affect productivity - work groups tend to arrive at norms of what is "a fair day's work".
So the obvious first change management lesson of this is that people benefit from a leadership style that addresses their need for your supportive attention.
Also the second lesson is that in the practice of change management leaders need to recognise and work with and through the informal social structures of the workplace.
Properly applied, this is exactly what a people-oriented leadership style will deliver when employing the holistic and wide view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
And, to ensure that you ARE employing successful strategies for managing change - that are appropriate to your organisation - you need to know how to apply: (a) these people oriented leadership skills, AND (b) how to apply the supporting programme management based processes - to ensure that you avoid the catastrophic 70% failure rate of ALL business change initiatives.
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.
Kurt Lewin - May the Force Field Analysis Be With You!
The American social psychologist Kurt Lewin, widely regarded one of the early 20th century founders of modern psychology, developed the change model known as "Lewin's Freeze Phases" and which still forms the underlying basis of many change management theories models and strategies for managing change.
Given that the people aspects of change is the overwhelming issue and in the light of the catastrophic fact that 70% of ALL change management initiatives fail, it is painfully clear that managing the change transition requires time and sensitive skillful leadership - exercised within people-focused change management processes.
This can only be consistently achieved by addressing all of the key factors that will make it possible. Clearly what is needed is a change management process that is people oriented and that takes full account of the human dimension of the change process. 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.
Lewin's work provides useful background and a practical tool for assessing the case for change - a necessary precursor for the creation and implementation of a programme based approach to managing change.
Underpinning his famous freeze phase model are 2 important and in my view foundational concepts.
Firstly the "Lewin's equation", introduced in "Principles of Topological Psychology" [1936], which is not actually a strict mathematical equation showing quantifiable relationships, but rather a heuristic - an experience based or rule of thumb technique - for predicting human behaviour.
The formula states that B = f(P,E) where B = Behaviour, F = Function, P = Person and E = Environment. Thus Lewin stated that behaviour is a function of the person and his/her environment. Thus the situational perspective of a person's momentary situation is the bigger key to understanding his/her behaviour instead of relying solely on past experiences and influences.
Lewin's second foundational concept was "Force field analysis" which provides a framework for looking at the factors or forces that influence a potential change situation. According to Lewin: "An issue is held in balance by the interaction of two opposing sets of forces - those seeking to promote change (driving forces) and those attempting to maintain the status quo (restraining forces)".
In Lewin's view, organisations can be seen as systems in which the current situation is not a static pattern, but rather an "equilibrium" - or "dynamic balance" of forces working in opposite directions. Thus, any change that may occur is dependent on a shift in this balance or equilibrium where the driving forces need to exceed the restraining forces.
In a potential change situation a force field analysis can be an extremely useful tool for assessing the possibility and viability of a change initiative. Here are some suggested simple steps for making this assessment:
1. Where are we now?
2. Where do we want to be?
3. What will happen if we don't get there?
4. What are forces or drivers for this change?
5. What are the forces or drivers against this change?
6. What are the strongest forces for and against change?
7. Is change viable?
8. What will be the impact of changing and not changing?
The output of this analysis will establish the foundations for the business case for change and the input to programme based approach to managing the change.
Given that the people aspects of change is the overwhelming issue and in the light of the catastrophic fact that 70% of ALL change management initiatives fail, it is painfully clear that managing the change transition requires time and sensitive skillful leadership - exercised within people-focused change management processes.
This can only be consistently achieved by addressing all of the key factors that will make it possible. Clearly what is needed is a change management process that is people oriented and that takes full account of the human dimension of the change process. 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.
Lewin's work provides useful background and a practical tool for assessing the case for change - a necessary precursor for the creation and implementation of a programme based approach to managing change.
Underpinning his famous freeze phase model are 2 important and in my view foundational concepts.
Firstly the "Lewin's equation", introduced in "Principles of Topological Psychology" [1936], which is not actually a strict mathematical equation showing quantifiable relationships, but rather a heuristic - an experience based or rule of thumb technique - for predicting human behaviour.
The formula states that B = f(P,E) where B = Behaviour, F = Function, P = Person and E = Environment. Thus Lewin stated that behaviour is a function of the person and his/her environment. Thus the situational perspective of a person's momentary situation is the bigger key to understanding his/her behaviour instead of relying solely on past experiences and influences.
Lewin's second foundational concept was "Force field analysis" which provides a framework for looking at the factors or forces that influence a potential change situation. According to Lewin: "An issue is held in balance by the interaction of two opposing sets of forces - those seeking to promote change (driving forces) and those attempting to maintain the status quo (restraining forces)".
In Lewin's view, organisations can be seen as systems in which the current situation is not a static pattern, but rather an "equilibrium" - or "dynamic balance" of forces working in opposite directions. Thus, any change that may occur is dependent on a shift in this balance or equilibrium where the driving forces need to exceed the restraining forces.
In a potential change situation a force field analysis can be an extremely useful tool for assessing the possibility and viability of a change initiative. Here are some suggested simple steps for making this assessment:
1. Where are we now?
2. Where do we want to be?
3. What will happen if we don't get there?
4. What are forces or drivers for this change?
5. What are the forces or drivers against this change?
6. What are the strongest forces for and against change?
7. Is change viable?
8. What will be the impact of changing and not changing?
The output of this analysis will establish the foundations for the business case for change and the input to programme based approach to managing the change.
What is the Single Biggest Issue Re Managing Change? And How to Address It
I often get asked the question: "In your experience, what is the single biggest issue affecting directors who are considering or embarking on a change initiative?"
This is good question and hard to answer because there are several key things that need to be addressed. But the single biggest early decision is to decide whether the change can be handled within the context of business as usual or not.
In other words is it incremental change or step change?
Addressing the following points arrives at the answer to that question:
(1) How's it going to be different when I've made the change?
(2) Why am I doing this - how's it going to benefit me?
(3) How will I know it's benefited me?
(4) Who is it going to affect and how will they react?
(5) What can I do to get them "on side"?
(6) What are the risks and issues that I'll have to face?
(7) What steps do I take to make the changes and get the benefit?
(8) How am I going to manage all this so that it happens and I succeed?
If the change involves any of these following factors then it will definitely need to be handled as a "step change" and treated as a specific initiative that sits outside of business as usual. The factors are: complexity, size, scope and priority.
So often I meet with directors and they complain that their staff "don't get it" or haven't "bought into" the change - or the vision for the change. Whereas I often find that is not the case, the issue is that they are just too busy. Let me illustrate this:
A couple of years ago I was invited to meet with the Operations Director and CEO of an NHS Health Trust. Their problem was that they were trying to drive through an initiative to improve utilisation of operating theatres - raising performance from 85% to 90% and they felt that their clinical directors and senior medical staff just weren't buying into it and supporting it. They felt that it was "them and us" scenario - "management versus medics".
The significance of this initiative was great because in the target driven environment in which UK Health care trusts operate, the achievement of this target unlocked 4m pounds sterling of annual central government funding [some 5% of their total funding].
Furthermore, they were investing an additional 10m pounds sterling in new operating theatres and productivity was key to them achieving the required ROI.
At the time of my visit, they were achieving the required targets only by buying in expensive third party resource.
Once I had met with a number of the key clinical staff, the real issue rapidly became very apparent: it was not that they didn't "buy in" - quite simply they were all too busy with their day to day responsibilities to be able to engage with this initiative.
What was needed was to take this outside of "hospital business as usual" and to make the appointment of a senior manager - freed up from the day job for a 3 months - to take complete ownership of the initiative and to ensure the prioritisation of it and the allocation of the required time and resource. So this was really all about the answer to question 8.
Last time I spoke with them, this is exactly what they did, and they succeeded.
This is good question and hard to answer because there are several key things that need to be addressed. But the single biggest early decision is to decide whether the change can be handled within the context of business as usual or not.
In other words is it incremental change or step change?
Addressing the following points arrives at the answer to that question:
(1) How's it going to be different when I've made the change?
(2) Why am I doing this - how's it going to benefit me?
(3) How will I know it's benefited me?
(4) Who is it going to affect and how will they react?
(5) What can I do to get them "on side"?
(6) What are the risks and issues that I'll have to face?
(7) What steps do I take to make the changes and get the benefit?
(8) How am I going to manage all this so that it happens and I succeed?
If the change involves any of these following factors then it will definitely need to be handled as a "step change" and treated as a specific initiative that sits outside of business as usual. The factors are: complexity, size, scope and priority.
So often I meet with directors and they complain that their staff "don't get it" or haven't "bought into" the change - or the vision for the change. Whereas I often find that is not the case, the issue is that they are just too busy. Let me illustrate this:
A couple of years ago I was invited to meet with the Operations Director and CEO of an NHS Health Trust. Their problem was that they were trying to drive through an initiative to improve utilisation of operating theatres - raising performance from 85% to 90% and they felt that their clinical directors and senior medical staff just weren't buying into it and supporting it. They felt that it was "them and us" scenario - "management versus medics".
The significance of this initiative was great because in the target driven environment in which UK Health care trusts operate, the achievement of this target unlocked 4m pounds sterling of annual central government funding [some 5% of their total funding].
Furthermore, they were investing an additional 10m pounds sterling in new operating theatres and productivity was key to them achieving the required ROI.
At the time of my visit, they were achieving the required targets only by buying in expensive third party resource.
Once I had met with a number of the key clinical staff, the real issue rapidly became very apparent: it was not that they didn't "buy in" - quite simply they were all too busy with their day to day responsibilities to be able to engage with this initiative.
What was needed was to take this outside of "hospital business as usual" and to make the appointment of a senior manager - freed up from the day job for a 3 months - to take complete ownership of the initiative and to ensure the prioritisation of it and the allocation of the required time and resource. So this was really all about the answer to question 8.
Last time I spoke with them, this is exactly what they did, and they succeeded.
What is the Biggest Issue Re Implementing Change? And How to Over Come It
Obviously there are many factors working against a successful implementation of any business project or initiative that contains a significant change element. In fact, there is a 70% chance of the initiative not achieving what was originally envisaged.
So what is the biggest issue re implementing change? And how do you overcome it?
This all boils down to: translating vision and strategy into actionable steps
In this current environment the restructuring, refocusing and re-engineering is only the start.
As business leader, you now face the equally if not more difficult challenge of getting the staff to deliver your new vision and achieve the revenue forecasts.
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 practical assistance. But, most people are capable of doing extra-ordinary things when they are motivated to do so.
At the macro level the root cause of this is lack of clarity and lack of communication about the people aspects of how to manage change - and even more fundamentally - the lack of a language and contextual framework to articulate and manage the necessary processes of change that will work for people.
At this level, a major part of the solution to this lies in employing a programme management approach to change - because:
(1) It is holistic and takes a wider perspective.
(2) It focuses you on addressing issues and aspects that otherwise get overlooked.
(3) It addresses the people impacts and issues arising as a direct and indirect result of your change initiative.
At the micro level, delivering a strategy and changing a culture requires hands-on detailed management - micro management on occasions - in the specifics of how to do it - especially during the early stages.
So at this operational level people need to be enabled and supported to develop the capabilities to deliver your strategy and become what you want them to become [or as close to that as is realistically possible].
Here are 3 very good places to start:
(1) Clarifying decision-making around return - this includes factoring in risk assessment and mitigation [as well as opportunity] to quantify outcomes and the likelihood of outcomes.
(2) "Grinding out" in practical, manageable detail exactly what the high level strategy/vision/values things actually mean for the "troops" in action - the specific actionable steps.
(3) Establishing the clear linkages and connections between vision -> senior management decisions->task-level implementation -> and results: in the delivery of the strategy.
So what is the biggest issue re implementing change? And how do you overcome it?
This all boils down to: translating vision and strategy into actionable steps
In this current environment the restructuring, refocusing and re-engineering is only the start.
As business leader, you now face the equally if not more difficult challenge of getting the staff to deliver your new vision and achieve the revenue forecasts.
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 practical assistance. But, most people are capable of doing extra-ordinary things when they are motivated to do so.
At the macro level the root cause of this is lack of clarity and lack of communication about the people aspects of how to manage change - and even more fundamentally - the lack of a language and contextual framework to articulate and manage the necessary processes of change that will work for people.
At this level, a major part of the solution to this lies in employing a programme management approach to change - because:
(1) It is holistic and takes a wider perspective.
(2) It focuses you on addressing issues and aspects that otherwise get overlooked.
(3) It addresses the people impacts and issues arising as a direct and indirect result of your change initiative.
At the micro level, delivering a strategy and changing a culture requires hands-on detailed management - micro management on occasions - in the specifics of how to do it - especially during the early stages.
So at this operational level people need to be enabled and supported to develop the capabilities to deliver your strategy and become what you want them to become [or as close to that as is realistically possible].
Here are 3 very good places to start:
(1) Clarifying decision-making around return - this includes factoring in risk assessment and mitigation [as well as opportunity] to quantify outcomes and the likelihood of outcomes.
(2) "Grinding out" in practical, manageable detail exactly what the high level strategy/vision/values things actually mean for the "troops" in action - the specific actionable steps.
(3) Establishing the clear linkages and connections between vision -> senior management decisions->task-level implementation -> and results: in the delivery of the strategy.
Employee Motivation Techniques - How to Achieve Peak Performance Through a Change Initiative
The term "employee motivation techniques" is in my view a little misleading as it implies a tactical "quick fix" approach. Whereas to achieve a peak performance from your people and in so doing, to create a genuine source of competitive advantage demands a strategic approach that embraces leadership style, corporate cultures and the supporting business and management processes.
At root this is all about the emotional dimension - specifically the emotional commitment of your employees and achieving an alignment and maintaining the balance between corporate performance and individual employee fulfilment.
In practise this means establishing what is important to your people, communicating to them what is important to you and the organisation, and finding ways of meeting both their and your goals. This is what lies at the heart of employee motivation techniques.
There are 4 factors that underpin all this in a change management context:
(1) Clarity in all areas- especially of the business need for the change, of the specifics of the change, the benefits of the change, and most importantly the impacts of the change. Also, at an individual level ensuring that people know precisely what is expected of them - i.e. you translate the vision into actionable steps.
(2) Communication - constant communication; two-way communication; communication that explains clearly what is happening or not happening and why, that listens actively and demonstrates to people that you have thought through the impacts of the change on them, and that you are prepared to work with them to achieve their buy-in and commitment to the change.
(3) Consistency - in all aspects of the way in which you lead the change; manage the delivery; handle the communication; and ensure the realisation of the benefits.
(4) Capability - constant attention to the management of the projects and initiatives that are delivering the capabilities into your organisation that will deliver the benefits.
Jon R. Katzenbach is the Senior Partner of Katzenbach Partners LLC, a consulting firm in New York City that specializes in leadership, team, and workforce performance. In his book " Peak Performance: Aligning the Hearts and Minds of Your Employees" Katzenbach examined the leaders of some of America's most successful corporations and found distinct patterns to their employee motivation techniques and thus employee performance that differentiated them from their competition.
Findings showed:
(1) A strong belief in the worth and value of each employee
(2) An engagement with their employees that was emotional as well as rational.
(3) They got the balance right between worker fulfilment and enterprise performance.
Overall what he found was that each company had what he calls a "workforce value proposition" that makes clear is expected of employees and what they get in return - and this transcended monetary awards with an emotionally committed workforce.
The key to effective employee motivation techniques and how and lead them through change, really is to be found by engaging with the people at the coal-face in your organisation.
At root this is all about the emotional dimension - specifically the emotional commitment of your employees and achieving an alignment and maintaining the balance between corporate performance and individual employee fulfilment.
In practise this means establishing what is important to your people, communicating to them what is important to you and the organisation, and finding ways of meeting both their and your goals. This is what lies at the heart of employee motivation techniques.
There are 4 factors that underpin all this in a change management context:
(1) Clarity in all areas- especially of the business need for the change, of the specifics of the change, the benefits of the change, and most importantly the impacts of the change. Also, at an individual level ensuring that people know precisely what is expected of them - i.e. you translate the vision into actionable steps.
(2) Communication - constant communication; two-way communication; communication that explains clearly what is happening or not happening and why, that listens actively and demonstrates to people that you have thought through the impacts of the change on them, and that you are prepared to work with them to achieve their buy-in and commitment to the change.
(3) Consistency - in all aspects of the way in which you lead the change; manage the delivery; handle the communication; and ensure the realisation of the benefits.
(4) Capability - constant attention to the management of the projects and initiatives that are delivering the capabilities into your organisation that will deliver the benefits.
Jon R. Katzenbach is the Senior Partner of Katzenbach Partners LLC, a consulting firm in New York City that specializes in leadership, team, and workforce performance. In his book " Peak Performance: Aligning the Hearts and Minds of Your Employees" Katzenbach examined the leaders of some of America's most successful corporations and found distinct patterns to their employee motivation techniques and thus employee performance that differentiated them from their competition.
Findings showed:
(1) A strong belief in the worth and value of each employee
(2) An engagement with their employees that was emotional as well as rational.
(3) They got the balance right between worker fulfilment and enterprise performance.
Overall what he found was that each company had what he calls a "workforce value proposition" that makes clear is expected of employees and what they get in return - and this transcended monetary awards with an emotionally committed workforce.
The key to effective employee motivation techniques and how and lead them through change, really is to be found by engaging with the people at the coal-face in your organisation.
How to Give Negative Feedback Constructively - Why It's Important in Business and Crucial in Change
In general business management knowing how to give negative feedback constructively is an important skill, but in change initiatives this is critical. The restructuring, refocusing and re-engineering is only the start. As business leader in a change management environment, you face the equally if not more difficult challenge of getting the staff to deliver your new vision and achieve the revenue forecasts. So this is all about translating 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 practical assistance. And they will make mistakes and get it wrong.
The absolute key to how to give negative feedback constructively and without destroying the other person's self esteem - is to separate the behaviour from the person. So you are addressing the behaviour and not the person.
Ken Blanchard was very hot on this 25 years ago in his "One Minute Manager" series of books. He also said: "catch them doing something right- and praise them".
This second big key to this and that underpins the first point is to "earn the right" to make the negative feedback by doing so in a context of frequent and regular positive feedback.
Over the years I have seen senior managers and directors issue edicts and criticise their staff from a distance and it always demotivates and causes resentment.
In line management, I have many times seen [and in the distant past experienced] managers dispensing negative feedback - and worst of all doing so behind people's backs.
I recall a situation about 25 years ago when I was a young business development manager at Dun & Bradstreet, and one of my team was under performing badly. Fortunately I had just read "The One Minute Manager" on how to give negative feedback and decided to put it into practise. As I outlined the performance issue I could see the woman I was talking to getting more and more resentful, defensive and tearful. Then, I will never forget how her expression changed completely and she smiled as I said "...but Annabel, I do want you to realise that I am not criticising you as a person..." and the whole mood of our exchange changed.
There are 3 guiding principles in how to give negative feedback:
(1) Clarity
Firstly, be very clear what you are seeking to achieve e.g. is this a prelude to job change or sacking, or are you seeking improvement, are you seeking to discover what may be a much bigger and more widespread issue?
Secondly, establish as quickly as possible whether you are dealing with a resource problem, a training problem or an attitude problem.
(2) Speed
People have short memories and it is important to link the feedback to the event that gave rise to it becoming necessary.
(3) Consistency
If you have set a clear performance standard - you must ensure that people meet that standard. Letting things slide because you don't want to confront the problem or feel sorry for the person is poor management and helps no-one - least of all the person with the problem.
So this is all about translating vision and strategy into actionable steps and providing negative feedback in a constructive positive manner.
The 70% failure rate of all change initiatives would suggest that the inability to do this is very closely linked to the core reasons for this failure rate.
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 practical assistance. And they will make mistakes and get it wrong.
The absolute key to how to give negative feedback constructively and without destroying the other person's self esteem - is to separate the behaviour from the person. So you are addressing the behaviour and not the person.
Ken Blanchard was very hot on this 25 years ago in his "One Minute Manager" series of books. He also said: "catch them doing something right- and praise them".
This second big key to this and that underpins the first point is to "earn the right" to make the negative feedback by doing so in a context of frequent and regular positive feedback.
Over the years I have seen senior managers and directors issue edicts and criticise their staff from a distance and it always demotivates and causes resentment.
In line management, I have many times seen [and in the distant past experienced] managers dispensing negative feedback - and worst of all doing so behind people's backs.
I recall a situation about 25 years ago when I was a young business development manager at Dun & Bradstreet, and one of my team was under performing badly. Fortunately I had just read "The One Minute Manager" on how to give negative feedback and decided to put it into practise. As I outlined the performance issue I could see the woman I was talking to getting more and more resentful, defensive and tearful. Then, I will never forget how her expression changed completely and she smiled as I said "...but Annabel, I do want you to realise that I am not criticising you as a person..." and the whole mood of our exchange changed.
There are 3 guiding principles in how to give negative feedback:
(1) Clarity
Firstly, be very clear what you are seeking to achieve e.g. is this a prelude to job change or sacking, or are you seeking improvement, are you seeking to discover what may be a much bigger and more widespread issue?
Secondly, establish as quickly as possible whether you are dealing with a resource problem, a training problem or an attitude problem.
(2) Speed
People have short memories and it is important to link the feedback to the event that gave rise to it becoming necessary.
(3) Consistency
If you have set a clear performance standard - you must ensure that people meet that standard. Letting things slide because you don't want to confront the problem or feel sorry for the person is poor management and helps no-one - least of all the person with the problem.
So this is all about translating vision and strategy into actionable steps and providing negative feedback in a constructive positive manner.
The 70% failure rate of all change initiatives would suggest that the inability to do this is very closely linked to the core reasons for this failure rate.
Toxic Leadership and Change Management - How to Spot It, Deal With it and Avoid It
Toxic leadership as a concept was coined by Marcia Lynn Whicker, in her book: "Toxic Leaders: When Organizations Go Bad". This is all about the abuse of power and its destructiveness.
This is bad enough in every day business, but for an organisation undergoing any form of change initiative it is potentially catastrophic. In change management terms, having anyone in a leadership or a management position in your organisation who displays these characteristics is like a poison that needs to be identified and eradicated at the earliest opportunity.
In my experience and in my view, toxic leadership contaminates and infects an organisation beyond the immediate reach of the person creating it.
Marcia Lynn Whicker describes toxic leaders as "maladjusted, malcontent, and often malevolent, even malicious. They succeed by tearing others down. They glory in turf protection, fighting and controlling rather than uplifting followers."
In "Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters" [2004] - writer Barbara Kellerman suggests that toxic may manifest in seven different categories:
- Incompetence
- Rigidity
- Intemperance - lack of self-control
- Callousness
- Corruption
- Insularity
- Evil
Personal experience of surviving toxic leadership...
Personally, I have twice in my career had the misfortune of working for a toxic boss. These guys were terrible to work for and made people's lives an absolute misery.
In business terms their "games" were always counter productive as everyone expended far more energy in trying to pacify or avoid them than in undertaking productive useful work. Each time was a nightmare, because:
- These guys were bullies and like all bullies were fundamentally weak and insecure individuals.
- They led by "divide and rule" by setting people against each other.
- They lied and were duplicitous and untrustworthy in their dealings.
- They engendered a culture of fear and mistrust.
- The general atmosphere they created can best be described as evil because of its insidious nastiness and destructiveness.
Here are 3 of my best strategies for dealing with toxic leadership if you have the misfortune of working for a boss like that.
(1) Neutralize their assaults on you
Neutralize their assaults, or to [use a cricketing term] "dead bat" them, by never being seen to react to any of their games. Because, these people feed off of the negative energy they create - it energizes them - so a non-reaction to their games deprives them of energy. Or to put it another way, evil feeds off of evil!
(2) Always wait before responding
These toxic people thrive on the reactions that they create. I have always found it best to never ever respond immediately. I learned to wait until I had calmed down, and then acted from a calm rational position. So, recognise and allow for the fact that it may [depending on your temperament] take you 24-48 hours for your emotional and nervous system to recover and re-stabilize after you have been on the receiving end of one of their assaults.
(3) Respond factually, accurately and supportively.
I have always found that a factual, practical and supportive response makes it easier and [more likely] for them to make the "right" decisions for my areas of business responsibility. It might seem counter-intuitive to act supportively, but the fact is these are fundamentally weak people and responding in this manner addresses their areas of weakness and insecurity and thus goes to the root of their toxic behaviour.
Spotting toxic leadership amongst your subordinates
As a director of your business or organisation you are in the privileged position of being able to identify any areas of your organisation where toxic leadership may be manifesting and to be able to do something about it.
The best defense for a director is to pay close and regular attention to the culture[s] within your organisation. Undertake regular "cultural audits" of the divisions, departments and operating units and subsidiaries in your organisation and as part of that process, take the emotional temperature and assess the energy of the working environment in each operating unit.
This should be an integral part of the preliminary stages of planning any change initiative. The 70% failure rate of all change initiatives would suggest that you are facing enough difficulties without harboring the poisonous complications of toxic leadership within your organisation, and this issue is closely linked to the core reasons for this failure rate.
This is bad enough in every day business, but for an organisation undergoing any form of change initiative it is potentially catastrophic. In change management terms, having anyone in a leadership or a management position in your organisation who displays these characteristics is like a poison that needs to be identified and eradicated at the earliest opportunity.
In my experience and in my view, toxic leadership contaminates and infects an organisation beyond the immediate reach of the person creating it.
Marcia Lynn Whicker describes toxic leaders as "maladjusted, malcontent, and often malevolent, even malicious. They succeed by tearing others down. They glory in turf protection, fighting and controlling rather than uplifting followers."
In "Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters" [2004] - writer Barbara Kellerman suggests that toxic may manifest in seven different categories:
- Incompetence
- Rigidity
- Intemperance - lack of self-control
- Callousness
- Corruption
- Insularity
- Evil
Personal experience of surviving toxic leadership...
Personally, I have twice in my career had the misfortune of working for a toxic boss. These guys were terrible to work for and made people's lives an absolute misery.
In business terms their "games" were always counter productive as everyone expended far more energy in trying to pacify or avoid them than in undertaking productive useful work. Each time was a nightmare, because:
- These guys were bullies and like all bullies were fundamentally weak and insecure individuals.
- They led by "divide and rule" by setting people against each other.
- They lied and were duplicitous and untrustworthy in their dealings.
- They engendered a culture of fear and mistrust.
- The general atmosphere they created can best be described as evil because of its insidious nastiness and destructiveness.
Here are 3 of my best strategies for dealing with toxic leadership if you have the misfortune of working for a boss like that.
(1) Neutralize their assaults on you
Neutralize their assaults, or to [use a cricketing term] "dead bat" them, by never being seen to react to any of their games. Because, these people feed off of the negative energy they create - it energizes them - so a non-reaction to their games deprives them of energy. Or to put it another way, evil feeds off of evil!
(2) Always wait before responding
These toxic people thrive on the reactions that they create. I have always found it best to never ever respond immediately. I learned to wait until I had calmed down, and then acted from a calm rational position. So, recognise and allow for the fact that it may [depending on your temperament] take you 24-48 hours for your emotional and nervous system to recover and re-stabilize after you have been on the receiving end of one of their assaults.
(3) Respond factually, accurately and supportively.
I have always found that a factual, practical and supportive response makes it easier and [more likely] for them to make the "right" decisions for my areas of business responsibility. It might seem counter-intuitive to act supportively, but the fact is these are fundamentally weak people and responding in this manner addresses their areas of weakness and insecurity and thus goes to the root of their toxic behaviour.
Spotting toxic leadership amongst your subordinates
As a director of your business or organisation you are in the privileged position of being able to identify any areas of your organisation where toxic leadership may be manifesting and to be able to do something about it.
The best defense for a director is to pay close and regular attention to the culture[s] within your organisation. Undertake regular "cultural audits" of the divisions, departments and operating units and subsidiaries in your organisation and as part of that process, take the emotional temperature and assess the energy of the working environment in each operating unit.
This should be an integral part of the preliminary stages of planning any change initiative. The 70% failure rate of all change initiatives would suggest that you are facing enough difficulties without harboring the poisonous complications of toxic leadership within your organisation, and this issue is closely linked to the core reasons for this failure rate.
Process Theories of Motivation - Why They Are Behind the 70% Failure Rate of All Change Initiatives
Process theories of motivation are about the psychological and behavioural processes that motivate an individual.
Put simply, this is all about how people's needs influence and drive their behaviour. People need to see what is in it for them and to sense that "fair play" is being exercised to all concerned. Clearly a basic understanding of this is foundational to the psychological underpinning of successful change management and the strategies for managing change that will deliver that.
The two main process theories of motivation are Expectancy Theory and Equity Theory.
Expectancy theory suggests that effort (a) is linked to the desire for a particular outcome, and (b) moderated by an evaluation of the likelihood of success.
This is a pragmatic perspective that assumes that as we are constantly trying to predict potential future outcomes, we attempt to create what we perceive to be as realistic expectations about future events.
Thus if things look reasonably likely and attractive, and if we know what to do in order to get there, and we believe we can actually do it, then this will motivate us to act to make this future come true.
According to this theory, individual motivation depends on three variables, which put simply are:
(1) What's in it for me?
(2) How achievable is it?
(3) Can I do it?
The main conclusion that can be drawn from this theory is people will only act when they think that they have a good chance of getting what they want.
Equity Theory suggests that at a basic level, most people generally prefer to be in relationships where give and take are about equal. So if one person is getting too little from the relationship, then clearly they are going to be unhappy with this but it is also likely that the other person will also be feeling rather guilty about this imbalance. This is reinforced by strong social norms about fairness.
Equity theory states that in return for an input of skills, effort or production, the employee receives an outcome expressed in terms of any combination of salary, status and fringe benefits. This creates a relationship between input and outcome. Equity is achieved when the ratios are the same for everyone in the organisation.
Equity theory also looks at an individual's perception of the fairness of an employment situation and finds that perceived inequalities can [unsurprisingly] lead to changes in work behaviour. When individuals believe that they have been treated unfairly in comparison with their co-workers, they are likely to work less effectively, ask for a pay rise or resign. So, in a nutshell, unequal treatment of staff leads to de-motivation.
These theories are not "rocket science" but they do serve as a useful reminder of the need to take full account of the impact of a change initiative on those people who are most affected by it. Failure to do this is a contributory factor of the 70% failure rate in all change initiatives.
Put simply, this is all about how people's needs influence and drive their behaviour. People need to see what is in it for them and to sense that "fair play" is being exercised to all concerned. Clearly a basic understanding of this is foundational to the psychological underpinning of successful change management and the strategies for managing change that will deliver that.
The two main process theories of motivation are Expectancy Theory and Equity Theory.
Expectancy theory suggests that effort (a) is linked to the desire for a particular outcome, and (b) moderated by an evaluation of the likelihood of success.
This is a pragmatic perspective that assumes that as we are constantly trying to predict potential future outcomes, we attempt to create what we perceive to be as realistic expectations about future events.
Thus if things look reasonably likely and attractive, and if we know what to do in order to get there, and we believe we can actually do it, then this will motivate us to act to make this future come true.
According to this theory, individual motivation depends on three variables, which put simply are:
(1) What's in it for me?
(2) How achievable is it?
(3) Can I do it?
The main conclusion that can be drawn from this theory is people will only act when they think that they have a good chance of getting what they want.
Equity Theory suggests that at a basic level, most people generally prefer to be in relationships where give and take are about equal. So if one person is getting too little from the relationship, then clearly they are going to be unhappy with this but it is also likely that the other person will also be feeling rather guilty about this imbalance. This is reinforced by strong social norms about fairness.
Equity theory states that in return for an input of skills, effort or production, the employee receives an outcome expressed in terms of any combination of salary, status and fringe benefits. This creates a relationship between input and outcome. Equity is achieved when the ratios are the same for everyone in the organisation.
Equity theory also looks at an individual's perception of the fairness of an employment situation and finds that perceived inequalities can [unsurprisingly] lead to changes in work behaviour. When individuals believe that they have been treated unfairly in comparison with their co-workers, they are likely to work less effectively, ask for a pay rise or resign. So, in a nutshell, unequal treatment of staff leads to de-motivation.
These theories are not "rocket science" but they do serve as a useful reminder of the need to take full account of the impact of a change initiative on those people who are most affected by it. Failure to do this is a contributory factor of the 70% failure rate in all change initiatives.
Merger Failures, Value Destruction and Cultural Conflicts - And How to Avoid Them!
To fully understand merger failures we need to understand the motivation behind M&A activity - which is primarily about the creation of value by exploiting [what is euphemistically referred to as] synergies.
Technically speaking, "synergy" is defined as the increase in the merging firms' competitive strengths and resulting cash flows beyond which the two companies are expected to accomplish independently. The word "synergy" entered merger vocabulary during the 1960s merger wave, and was used to describe gains from conglomerate mergers that could not be readily identified, but were presumed to be present to explain why the mergers occurred.
If it were not for the catastrophic failure rate of most mergers and the destruction of shareholder value and, most importantly, the human cost, then this could be amusing. But to my mind it isn't, it is an appalling indictment of the business world and their advisors that [just as in the world of change management] 70% of all M&A activity fail to realise the intended benefits.
There have been endless studies over the past 30 years to explore the reason for merger successes and merger failures. The overwhelming evidence is that over 70% of the time, mergers do not create synergies and shareholders of both companies involved do not see gains in shareholder value.
According to a survey published by KPMG in 2008, the proportion of M&A deals that have reduced value has increased by 50 percent in the two years since their previous survey. Culture remains one of the top post deal challenges with companies continuing to link post deal HR challenges with cultural complexity.
Greatest risks to merger success are all people related.
A survey conducted by A.T. Kearney in 2004 to identify the most critical phase to merger success or merger failures, revealed that whilst the majority of 53% stressed that the actual implementation phase - often referred to as the "post-merger integration" phase - bears the greatest risk - this post-acquisition phase is the most ignored.
In a study of 40 British companies, Cartright and Cooper [1995] reported that all 40 conducted a detailed financial and legal audit of the company they intended to acquire, but that not even one of these same companies made any attempt to carry out an audit of the company's human resources and culture to assess the challenges concerning integration of the organization they were acquiring.
A brief review of many business and academic studies into the factors impacting merger failures reveals the greatest risk of merger failure existed in the area of people issues, and proposes the value of a "soft" due diligence audit focusing on human resources to identify cultural difference and issues to be faced and impacts on those people who are critical to the success of the merger.
Dominic Fong of Curtin Business School said: "One critical factor that befalls a merger is cultural conflicts....". T.J Tetenhaum describes culture "as the heart of a merger integration". Another writer Richard S. Bibler suggests that cultural incompatibility is the single largest cause of merger failures. According to Bibler the difficulty of blending two organisations lies in the fact that each group tends to see the world through its own biased cultural filters, which he refers to as "familiarity blindness" or "cultural trance", and this cannot be overemphasised as a cause of merger failures.
A very personal perspective...
What really bothers me is the way the system currently works for remunerating all of the professional advisors who provide services to the corporate world. I would welcome the day when professional advisors and senior executives have a significant part of their large remuneration linked to the medium term [i.e.3-5 years] shareholder value they created - cos I somehow feel that might go a long way to redefining the whole concept of "synergy" and reducing the percentage of merger failures.
Excuse the lateral thinking for a moment - but can you imagine civil engineers or construction companies or the people who build nuclear power stations - working on the same basis - where a 70% failure rate was accepted? Can you? So why on earth should the world of business be any different?
Why does this bother me? Quite simply, because of the very considerable, unnecessary, and totally avoidable human cost.
So How to avoid these risks of merger failures...
The best way to avoid these merger failure reasons is to conduct a "soft" due diligence audit, focusing on the human resources aspects of the merger to identify (1) cultural difference and issues to be faced, and (2) the impacts on those people who are going to be most affected, and those people who are critical to the success of the merger.
And as my contribution to all this, I have developed a diagnostic process that 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.
This tool can be applied to a proposed merger as part of the HR due diligence process, to identify and assess the cultural issues that will be encountered. The tool is sufficiently flexible and scalable to be adapted, modified or enhanced to meet a specific requirement.
It is low tech and simple to understand and apply, it involves staff at any or 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 proposed merger.
The output of this process forms the input for the creation of a programme management based approach to managing the change management and HR related aspects of post merger integration aspects.
Technically speaking, "synergy" is defined as the increase in the merging firms' competitive strengths and resulting cash flows beyond which the two companies are expected to accomplish independently. The word "synergy" entered merger vocabulary during the 1960s merger wave, and was used to describe gains from conglomerate mergers that could not be readily identified, but were presumed to be present to explain why the mergers occurred.
If it were not for the catastrophic failure rate of most mergers and the destruction of shareholder value and, most importantly, the human cost, then this could be amusing. But to my mind it isn't, it is an appalling indictment of the business world and their advisors that [just as in the world of change management] 70% of all M&A activity fail to realise the intended benefits.
There have been endless studies over the past 30 years to explore the reason for merger successes and merger failures. The overwhelming evidence is that over 70% of the time, mergers do not create synergies and shareholders of both companies involved do not see gains in shareholder value.
According to a survey published by KPMG in 2008, the proportion of M&A deals that have reduced value has increased by 50 percent in the two years since their previous survey. Culture remains one of the top post deal challenges with companies continuing to link post deal HR challenges with cultural complexity.
Greatest risks to merger success are all people related.
A survey conducted by A.T. Kearney in 2004 to identify the most critical phase to merger success or merger failures, revealed that whilst the majority of 53% stressed that the actual implementation phase - often referred to as the "post-merger integration" phase - bears the greatest risk - this post-acquisition phase is the most ignored.
In a study of 40 British companies, Cartright and Cooper [1995] reported that all 40 conducted a detailed financial and legal audit of the company they intended to acquire, but that not even one of these same companies made any attempt to carry out an audit of the company's human resources and culture to assess the challenges concerning integration of the organization they were acquiring.
A brief review of many business and academic studies into the factors impacting merger failures reveals the greatest risk of merger failure existed in the area of people issues, and proposes the value of a "soft" due diligence audit focusing on human resources to identify cultural difference and issues to be faced and impacts on those people who are critical to the success of the merger.
Dominic Fong of Curtin Business School said: "One critical factor that befalls a merger is cultural conflicts....". T.J Tetenhaum describes culture "as the heart of a merger integration". Another writer Richard S. Bibler suggests that cultural incompatibility is the single largest cause of merger failures. According to Bibler the difficulty of blending two organisations lies in the fact that each group tends to see the world through its own biased cultural filters, which he refers to as "familiarity blindness" or "cultural trance", and this cannot be overemphasised as a cause of merger failures.
A very personal perspective...
What really bothers me is the way the system currently works for remunerating all of the professional advisors who provide services to the corporate world. I would welcome the day when professional advisors and senior executives have a significant part of their large remuneration linked to the medium term [i.e.3-5 years] shareholder value they created - cos I somehow feel that might go a long way to redefining the whole concept of "synergy" and reducing the percentage of merger failures.
Excuse the lateral thinking for a moment - but can you imagine civil engineers or construction companies or the people who build nuclear power stations - working on the same basis - where a 70% failure rate was accepted? Can you? So why on earth should the world of business be any different?
Why does this bother me? Quite simply, because of the very considerable, unnecessary, and totally avoidable human cost.
So How to avoid these risks of merger failures...
The best way to avoid these merger failure reasons is to conduct a "soft" due diligence audit, focusing on the human resources aspects of the merger to identify (1) cultural difference and issues to be faced, and (2) the impacts on those people who are going to be most affected, and those people who are critical to the success of the merger.
And as my contribution to all this, I have developed a diagnostic process that 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.
This tool can be applied to a proposed merger as part of the HR due diligence process, to identify and assess the cultural issues that will be encountered. The tool is sufficiently flexible and scalable to be adapted, modified or enhanced to meet a specific requirement.
It is low tech and simple to understand and apply, it involves staff at any or 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 proposed merger.
The output of this process forms the input for the creation of a programme management based approach to managing the change management and HR related aspects of post merger integration aspects.
Leadership Styles - A Lesson From the Frontline in Warzone Afghanistan
How do you exercise a leadership style that will provide inspirational motivation to people living with the constant insecurities engendered by the current economic climate? How do you lead your people through change and identify the most effective strategies for managing change that are appropriate to these conditions?
Making tough decisions, implementing change, and telling people that this is the way it is - really isn't the same as getting them giving them the inspirational motivation to accept how things are and to work well.
As Michael Hammer - former Business Process Re-engineering guru of the last recession - now says: "The human side [of change] is much harder than the technology side and the process side. It's the overwhelming issue."
Daniel Goleman ["Primal Leadership"] has eloquently articulated the principle of a style of leadership that resonates with people - that speaks from the heart and offers a measure of re-assurance and certainty of conviction about the direction in which they are being led.
But how you do you translate that into action? How do you actually provide inspirational motivation for people?
People will do anything if they accept the "emotional logic" - Win the battle for their hearts as well as their minds.
People may rationally understand why you need to implement major change - such as getting rid of people - cutting costs - reviewing and streamlining processes etc - but they won't feel any better about it - they won't automatically buy in to it.
And yet, in tough times people are capable of doing extra-ordinary things and of enduring previously unbearable privations - if their hearts are in it.
Having "their hearts in it" actually means that they are feeling a very deep and powerful emotional connection with some form of "greater good".
It means that they find - or are shown - some element of the mundane, tedious, scary and [in extremity] dangerous situation they find themselves in that transmutes their negative feelings into something positive that is deeply connected with some person, some group, some value or belief -something they hold very dear. This is a big key to understanding inspirational motivation.
A current and poignantly dramatic illustration of this is the serving soldier. At the time of writing, British forces are involved in "Operation Panther's Claw" - the current and to date largest British offensive against the Taliban insurgency near Gereshk in Helmand province Afghanistan.
Having taken heavy losses and in the context of reported current briefings estimating anticipated losses [i.e. deaths] at 10% of troops in the frontline, a young soldier recovering from his injuries at Camp Bastion the British HQ said:
"...We don't care about the future of Afghanistan. We don't care about democracy, clean water, schools for girls or the political overview. All we care about now is each other and making sure that our mates get out of this alive".
I have also personally spoken at length with 2 active serving soldiers in Afghanistan - one a Commando who is a family member - and they both expressed it in very similar terms.
So the first lesson for achieving a leadership style that provides inspirational motivation to leading your people through change and turbulence is to find out what your people really care about.
This simple powerful truth underpins all successful strategies for managing change.
And, to ensure that you ARE employing successful strategies for managing change - that are appropriate to your organisation - you need to know how to apply: (a) an inspirational and motivational leadership style, AND (b) how to apply the supporting programme management based processes - to ensure that you avoid the catastrophic 70% failure rate of ALL business change initiatives.
Making tough decisions, implementing change, and telling people that this is the way it is - really isn't the same as getting them giving them the inspirational motivation to accept how things are and to work well.
As Michael Hammer - former Business Process Re-engineering guru of the last recession - now says: "The human side [of change] is much harder than the technology side and the process side. It's the overwhelming issue."
Daniel Goleman ["Primal Leadership"] has eloquently articulated the principle of a style of leadership that resonates with people - that speaks from the heart and offers a measure of re-assurance and certainty of conviction about the direction in which they are being led.
But how you do you translate that into action? How do you actually provide inspirational motivation for people?
People will do anything if they accept the "emotional logic" - Win the battle for their hearts as well as their minds.
People may rationally understand why you need to implement major change - such as getting rid of people - cutting costs - reviewing and streamlining processes etc - but they won't feel any better about it - they won't automatically buy in to it.
And yet, in tough times people are capable of doing extra-ordinary things and of enduring previously unbearable privations - if their hearts are in it.
Having "their hearts in it" actually means that they are feeling a very deep and powerful emotional connection with some form of "greater good".
It means that they find - or are shown - some element of the mundane, tedious, scary and [in extremity] dangerous situation they find themselves in that transmutes their negative feelings into something positive that is deeply connected with some person, some group, some value or belief -something they hold very dear. This is a big key to understanding inspirational motivation.
A current and poignantly dramatic illustration of this is the serving soldier. At the time of writing, British forces are involved in "Operation Panther's Claw" - the current and to date largest British offensive against the Taliban insurgency near Gereshk in Helmand province Afghanistan.
Having taken heavy losses and in the context of reported current briefings estimating anticipated losses [i.e. deaths] at 10% of troops in the frontline, a young soldier recovering from his injuries at Camp Bastion the British HQ said:
"...We don't care about the future of Afghanistan. We don't care about democracy, clean water, schools for girls or the political overview. All we care about now is each other and making sure that our mates get out of this alive".
I have also personally spoken at length with 2 active serving soldiers in Afghanistan - one a Commando who is a family member - and they both expressed it in very similar terms.
So the first lesson for achieving a leadership style that provides inspirational motivation to leading your people through change and turbulence is to find out what your people really care about.
This simple powerful truth underpins all successful strategies for managing change.
And, to ensure that you ARE employing successful strategies for managing change - that are appropriate to your organisation - you need to know how to apply: (a) an inspirational and motivational leadership style, AND (b) how to apply the supporting programme management based processes - to ensure that you avoid the catastrophic 70% failure rate of ALL business change initiatives.
Project Management Maturity Model - What is It? Does it Matter? Why Bother?
The origins of the concept of a project management maturity model, is lost in the mists of time. With the evidence of project management skills as far back as the time of the building of the Pyramids and the Great Wall of China and other great wonders of the world - it is quite logical to suppose that there could have been an early model to map the progress of developing project management skills. After all, for an ancient project manager the price of failure came high!
In more recent times the concept of a project management maturity model has evolved considerably from the software industry. There is the need to understand and measure many variables, manage great complexity, obtain consistent results and achieve stringent delivery targets within budget.
With regard to which model is the "best" or most appropriate for any specific situation [I fully appreciate that project management professionals reading this may disagree with what I am about to say, but] I feel the far bigger challenge is actually in getting ANY model applied.
From that point on, and with director level sponsorship and support - all things are possible. There are many maturity models [I am aware of over 35] and the dominant model is the P3M3 Model created and sponsored by the OGC [UK Office of Government and Commerce] in association the APMG [UK Association of Project Management Group.
This is a composite and enhanced model that addresses the 3 related aspects of large-scale project management and that glories in the full title of "Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Mode".
Try this test ...
In relation to your [or your client's] organisation:
- Do you use project management?
- Do you use programme management?
- Do you know the difference?
- Do you know why knowing the difference matters?
Try this simple test - review the different levels listed below based on the P3M3 maturity model - firstly in relation to project management and then secondly with programme management - and see which best describes your organisation:
> Level 0 - No process - the organisation has no project and /or programme management skills or experience
> Level 1 - Awareness process - the organisation is able to recognize projects and/or programmes - but has little structured approach to dealing with them.
> Level 2 - Repeatable process - there may be areas that are beginning to use standard approaches to projects and/or programmes but there is no consistency of approach across the organisation.
> Level 3 - Defined process - there will be a consistent set of standards being used across the organisation with clear process ownership.
> Level 4 - Managed process - the organisation monitors and measures its process efficiency, with active interventions to improve the way it delivers based largely on evidence or performance based information.
> Level 5 - Optimised process - the organisation will be focussing on optimisation of its quantitatively managed processes to take into account changing business needs and external factors.
Where you and your organisation sit on the maturity model is one of the biggest key factors in leading change that will determine your chances of success [the others are (a) the quality of leadership, and (b) the cultures in your organisation].
Why bother?
In 2003 "The Project Management Institute" came up with the following definition: "Organisational Project Management Maturity describes an organisation's overall ability to select and manage projects in a way that supports its strategic goals".
Well that all sounds very noble - but the simple rationale for having and using a project management maturity model is quite simply that projects fail! [And the same is true for programme and change management.]
A survey conducted in 2003 by the Standish Group(US)showed that 66% of IT projects are either totally abandoned or fail against a measure of budget, scope, time or quality (i.e. 'challenged').
A similar study in the UK by Computer Weekly that 84% of projects either failed or were challenged. It has been estimated that the cost to US business of failing or abandoned IT projects runs into hundreds of billions of dollars.
Closer to home the UK government have wasted countless billions of pounds on failed projects. At the programme level - with the wider perspective beyond a project delivery of capability to the actual realisation of a defined organisational benefit - the failure rate is a consistent 70%.
And given that every programme encompasses a signifcant change element, the same failure rate applies to any significant change management initiative.
Progress driven by pain
In most organisations the evolution of project management, programme management and change management skills typically lags far behind the development of other capabilities within the company. So the state of maturity to a large degree reflects the prevailing dominant corporate culture.
Given that companies [or more accurately directors] don't know what they don't know - the level of maturity of the company remains invisible. In fact the very concept of a maturity model remains invisible. So nothing changes until things go wrong - and pain is felt and someone at director level is facing an exposure as a result of a significant project failure.
This is the point at which progress becomes possible as progress needs sponsorship. And as the focus shifts to improving performance, there are two principal targets.
(1) To improve how any specific project, programme and change is managed.
(2) To improve performance in overall organisational capability in project, programme and change management.
The purpose of this assessment is to show the extent to which the infrastructure within the organisation supports the project, programme and change management efforts.
Benefits of a structured assessment
The main benefits of the subsequent structured assessment of maturity within the organisation isn't in understanding the current level at which the company is performing, but rather in setting direction, prioritising actions and beginning cultural change.
So, taking project management as an example: an organisational project management maturity model provides guidance to an organisation regarding how to:
- Articulate project success
- Measure project performance
- Make the delivery of projects more predictable
- Help projects work together instead of against each other in a multi-project environment
In 2003 The Centre for Business Practices produced its 'Project Management - the State of the Industry' survey. This survey measured organisational improvement over time, as a result of project management improvement programmes.
The highlights of this survey show significant improvements in terms of financial performance, customer retention and satisfaction, project and process improvement, employees satisfaction and productivity, and a dramatic 70% increase in project alignment with strategic objectives.
In a change management context, after enough pain has been experienced, a mature project culture will evolve into the holistic and wider view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
But you can get there much more quickly and with far less pain IF [and only if] you know how to navigate the issues that directly cause the catastrophic 70% failure rate of ALL change initiatives.
In more recent times the concept of a project management maturity model has evolved considerably from the software industry. There is the need to understand and measure many variables, manage great complexity, obtain consistent results and achieve stringent delivery targets within budget.
With regard to which model is the "best" or most appropriate for any specific situation [I fully appreciate that project management professionals reading this may disagree with what I am about to say, but] I feel the far bigger challenge is actually in getting ANY model applied.
From that point on, and with director level sponsorship and support - all things are possible. There are many maturity models [I am aware of over 35] and the dominant model is the P3M3 Model created and sponsored by the OGC [UK Office of Government and Commerce] in association the APMG [UK Association of Project Management Group.
This is a composite and enhanced model that addresses the 3 related aspects of large-scale project management and that glories in the full title of "Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Mode".
Try this test ...
In relation to your [or your client's] organisation:
- Do you use project management?
- Do you use programme management?
- Do you know the difference?
- Do you know why knowing the difference matters?
Try this simple test - review the different levels listed below based on the P3M3 maturity model - firstly in relation to project management and then secondly with programme management - and see which best describes your organisation:
> Level 0 - No process - the organisation has no project and /or programme management skills or experience
> Level 1 - Awareness process - the organisation is able to recognize projects and/or programmes - but has little structured approach to dealing with them.
> Level 2 - Repeatable process - there may be areas that are beginning to use standard approaches to projects and/or programmes but there is no consistency of approach across the organisation.
> Level 3 - Defined process - there will be a consistent set of standards being used across the organisation with clear process ownership.
> Level 4 - Managed process - the organisation monitors and measures its process efficiency, with active interventions to improve the way it delivers based largely on evidence or performance based information.
> Level 5 - Optimised process - the organisation will be focussing on optimisation of its quantitatively managed processes to take into account changing business needs and external factors.
Where you and your organisation sit on the maturity model is one of the biggest key factors in leading change that will determine your chances of success [the others are (a) the quality of leadership, and (b) the cultures in your organisation].
Why bother?
In 2003 "The Project Management Institute" came up with the following definition: "Organisational Project Management Maturity describes an organisation's overall ability to select and manage projects in a way that supports its strategic goals".
Well that all sounds very noble - but the simple rationale for having and using a project management maturity model is quite simply that projects fail! [And the same is true for programme and change management.]
A survey conducted in 2003 by the Standish Group(US)showed that 66% of IT projects are either totally abandoned or fail against a measure of budget, scope, time or quality (i.e. 'challenged').
A similar study in the UK by Computer Weekly that 84% of projects either failed or were challenged. It has been estimated that the cost to US business of failing or abandoned IT projects runs into hundreds of billions of dollars.
Closer to home the UK government have wasted countless billions of pounds on failed projects. At the programme level - with the wider perspective beyond a project delivery of capability to the actual realisation of a defined organisational benefit - the failure rate is a consistent 70%.
And given that every programme encompasses a signifcant change element, the same failure rate applies to any significant change management initiative.
Progress driven by pain
In most organisations the evolution of project management, programme management and change management skills typically lags far behind the development of other capabilities within the company. So the state of maturity to a large degree reflects the prevailing dominant corporate culture.
Given that companies [or more accurately directors] don't know what they don't know - the level of maturity of the company remains invisible. In fact the very concept of a maturity model remains invisible. So nothing changes until things go wrong - and pain is felt and someone at director level is facing an exposure as a result of a significant project failure.
This is the point at which progress becomes possible as progress needs sponsorship. And as the focus shifts to improving performance, there are two principal targets.
(1) To improve how any specific project, programme and change is managed.
(2) To improve performance in overall organisational capability in project, programme and change management.
The purpose of this assessment is to show the extent to which the infrastructure within the organisation supports the project, programme and change management efforts.
Benefits of a structured assessment
The main benefits of the subsequent structured assessment of maturity within the organisation isn't in understanding the current level at which the company is performing, but rather in setting direction, prioritising actions and beginning cultural change.
So, taking project management as an example: an organisational project management maturity model provides guidance to an organisation regarding how to:
- Articulate project success
- Measure project performance
- Make the delivery of projects more predictable
- Help projects work together instead of against each other in a multi-project environment
In 2003 The Centre for Business Practices produced its 'Project Management - the State of the Industry' survey. This survey measured organisational improvement over time, as a result of project management improvement programmes.
The highlights of this survey show significant improvements in terms of financial performance, customer retention and satisfaction, project and process improvement, employees satisfaction and productivity, and a dramatic 70% increase in project alignment with strategic objectives.
In a change management context, after enough pain has been experienced, a mature project culture will evolve into the holistic and wider view perspective of a programme based approach to change management.
But you can get there much more quickly and with far less pain IF [and only if] you know how to navigate the issues that directly cause the catastrophic 70% failure rate of ALL change initiatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)