The Current State Of Change Management In The UK

The current state of change management in the UK is currently reactive to issues that show up on the board's radar rather than driven by any strategic intent or innovation.

This, and the following observations, are based on current analysis of recent surveys and supported by my own research and experiences.

I appreciate that many readers of this article are non-UK, however I sense that many of the issues we face here in the UK may be shared to some extent in other countries and cultures.

Currently the UK top three drivers for change are:

(1) Increased efficiency
(2) Cost reduction
(3) Corporate restructure

Essentially this is all about stripping out cost rather than innovation to create added customer value.

"Short-termism"

All the evidence shows that change management programmes in the UK are frequently badly thought out, managing change in the workplace is poorly executed and many do not succeed in achieving their stated objectives. The responsibility for this lies predominantly with the directors and senior management.

The main reason for this is the culture of "short-termism" where monthly and quarterly targets drive companies.

The direct effect of this is that the focus in change management is nearly always on getting the quickest return by fixing the most obvious and glaring problems.

This focus on quick fixes often reflects a lack of investment in the organisation in the first place. So change management in the UK is seen as a sort of "magical box of tricks" that will somehow get them through the aspect of change they don't like handling - the people issues - so that they can get to the aspect they do like handling - which is the money.

This also reflects the all too frequent lack of clarity of what the change management initiative is intended to deliver, and a "business case" for change based on knee-jerk reactions.

Whereas the reality is that managing change in the workplace is really all about being able to deal with complexity and "messiness" - with many stakeholders simultaneously - and dealing with a multiplicity of different views of the issues facing the company and how to deal with them!

Change management is imposed from the top-down

Given that these are change management programmes that will have a direct and probably negative impact on employees - with possible job losses, and that the remaining staff will be expected to do more and work harder - they are understandably viewed with suspicion and concern across the organisation.

In too many organisations, change management in the UK is imposed from the top-down, there is little if any consideration given to the need and business benefit of winning hearts and minds.

So the majority on the receiving end of these edicts spend most of their time doing just enough to "be seen to be wanting" to comply but in reality resisting the change and despising and resenting those "on high" who impose this stuff on them.

So when implementing change management and managing change in the workplace directors and senior managers sacrifice the needs and feelings of their employees in the interests of keeping their shareholders happy.

This is reflected in the research that shows that two of the top five biggest mistakes that occur in change management in UK companies are to do with staff issues, and this is closely followed by weaknesses identified amongst senior managers.

Negative assessment of the role of senior management

This short sightedness is ultimately counterproductive because if change management programmes are badly handled - as so many are - then the chance of failure is greater. Furthermore, they can cause more damage to the morale of the company, and thus have a negative effect on future competitiveness.

Research shows a negative assessment of the role senior management play in helping to achieve the end goals of change management initiatives. More than 50% feel that senior management fail specifically in inspiring the workforce, managing change in the workplace and providing effective leadership.

The evidence suggests that senior executives lack basic understanding of the aims of business transformation initiatives and specifically their roles as sponsors; and also are lacking in many of the core skills expected of leaders and that are vital for the implementation of change management.

Yet despite this, there is a widely shared belief that good executive sponsorship is key in helping a change management programme to deliver competitive advantage to a business.

The tide has turned against the major management consultancies

Despite the fact the "change industry" is a multi-billion pound business for UK consultancies, the tide has finally turned against the major blue-chip management consultancies, in terms of perception of "value for money".

The majority of businesses planning a major change management programme prefer to use their own internal resource, or drafting in experts to either fill knowledge gaps or manage the entire process if required.

Summary conclusion

In summary, research findings indicate that all too often, UK companies embark upon change management on a reactive and "knee-jerk" basis to protect them, rather than with desire to innovate and improve.

The tragic result of all this is that too many UK change management initiatives suffer from a lack of vision, bad management skills and are generally under resourced, which leads to a poor reception from workers and ultimately a large number of failed programmes.

This is the current state of change management in the UK. What is it like where you are?

For more on this: " Managing change in the workplace "

Equip yourself to avoid the 70% failure rate of all change initiatives with the "Practitioners' Masterclass - Leading your people through change, putting it all together and managing the whole messy business."

Resistance to Change - Overcoming it by Working With Informal Networks

Resistance to change is the inevitable consequence when management do not recognise the people dimension of change and when management do not employ change processes, and change management techniques that recognise and work with the political and relational aspects of informal networks that exist within every large organisation.

According to Jon Katzenbach and Zia Khan (Authors of "Leading outside the Lines")

"Learning how to mobilize the informal elements of an organization to accelerate the formal elements goes a long way in helping leaders fill the gap between intention and results."

In his famous 8 Step Change Model, John Kotter emphasises the importance of creating and sustaining an energy for change starting with a sense of urgency and then building on that to build a coalition for change. Kotter advises that for a significant change initiative to have any chance of overcoming resistance to change and succeeding, it requires the support of at least 75% of the management.

The recognition, identification and utilisation of informal networks takes these insights a quantum step forward.

UK based change management practitioner Neil Farmer has led 5 successful major change initiatives and he observes that whilst the formal organisation determines all routine aspects of what takes place, and in so doing provides the necessary "glue" of stability and repeatability, the shadow or informal organisation largely determines the scope and pace of change:

"Where the shadow and formal organisations come into conflict in a change situation, the balance of influence in the shadow organisation will almost always win the day."

Key steps to dealing with resistance to change via informal networks

(1) Relaxing "command and control"

The first and biggest step is one that can only be taken by the CEO and senior management of the organisation, and that is to relinquish (or at least relax) "command and control". Not totally of course, as there is always a need for firm direction and senior management edicts, but sufficiently to empower the change leaders to identify and work in collaboration with the informal networks.

In my direct and observed experience, this seldom happens. The DNA of the leaders and senior management of most organisations ( especially large ones) is hard-coded to resist this - thus resistance to change starts at the top. In the UK at least, this resistance to change in management style reflects the myopia that results from a general business culture fixated on short-term results.

All too often, the only conditions that encourage directors to relax command and control are either the appointment of a new CEO and/or senior management team, or the threat of a fairly major exposure i.e. an issue that is severe enough to create a personal accountability and potentially one that could be politically exploited to the personal detriment of the individual executive.

You may feel this is a cynical view but it is (sadly) reflected in change leaders and managers failure in dealing with resistance to change and the resultant 70% failure rate of all significant change initiatives.

(2) Organisation Network Analysis

Organisation Network Analysis (ONA) is an extension of cultural and sub-cultural analysis - moving beyond the identification of entities and individuals who inhabit a range of sub-cultural attitudes and behaviours (which may or may not be receptive and open to change) and into the identification and mapping of the networks of these individuals.

The applied methodology for conducting an Organisation Network Analysis (ONA) is similar to that employed to conduct a cultural analysis, namely an iterative process of informal interviews commencing with a known change positive influencer and preceding on a referral basis until all referrals in the network have been interviewed.

ONA scans are guided and enabled by known change positive influencers and can move from "shallow" scans to increasingly "deeper" (or more detailed ) scans.

(3) Identifying the "change positive" key influencers in the informal networks

Jon Katzenbach call these "change positive" key influencers "master motivators" - these are people right down at the front line who are naturally and intuitively collaborative, who are already recognized amongst their colleagues for their unique ability to gain the emotional commitment of their people - those who intuitively make better use of informal networks and communities of common interest than most good managers do.

There are 2 types of key influencers/master motivators: those who are open-minded to change and those who are by nature positive to change.

(4) Introducing key influencers/master motivators into first line management roles

This first level of management has the most contact and thus most direct influence on people and is thus critical in dealing with resistance to change. Neil Farmer suggests that typically there may be only as few or 30 or 40% of key influencers/master motivators in these positions, and is highly desirable to increase this to 80% as soon as possible.

(5) Don't try to manage the informal networks like the formal networks

Jon Katzenbach says that the biggest mistakes leaders make when trying to manage and maximize the informal organization is to try to manage the informal like the formal. Informal networks will not be told what to do or accept a top down imposition, rather they need to influenced and energised. As Katzenbach says:"...mobilize the informal and manage the formal".

So one of your first steps to dealing with resistance to change is in identifying and mapping the informal networks that exist within your organisation and specifically the individuals within these networks and their relationships.

Resistance to Change - Understanding the Critical Disconnects - Where They Are and How They Arise

Resistance to change and dealing with resistance to change is a subject about which much has been written and it remains a recurring subject in comments and questions posted on my website and about which people email me. This is hardly surprising given the 70% failure rate.

In the context of dealing with resistance to change, it is important to understand the critical disconnects - where they are and how they arise and how they impact employee responses to change. In my experience there are at least 2 significant areas of disconnection between management and employees.

(1) Management are detached from direct feedback from the frontline and the human consequences of their decisions

The further up the "greasy pole" we look, the greater the disconnection from the frontline. Change management practitioner Neil Farmer of UK based Informal Networks Ltd describes this as:

"... a deadly case of an inverse correlation - on the one hand growing ego and confidence, and on the other diminishing feedback, from source."

Once junior executives start their upward ascent into management they generally do not receive training in the need for and skills of acquiring and processing feedback. Not do they get much, if any, training in the critical interactive skills that are essential to long-lasting success in organisational management. This lack of training and awareness of the need for feedback from the frontline is reinforced with the growing confidence of the developing young executive.

Perversely, the lack of feedback feeds the growing sense of confidence of the executive and as long as he (or she) is seen to be relatively successful then their upward progress continues.

The other factor that feeds the rising executive's growing sense of confidence is the "business by default" factor - this is the business momentum which occurs when long standing businesses tend to keep winning and holding business just because they always have and not least because of the commitment of their frontline staff. So rather than recognising that much of their perceived success is not in fact attributable to their own skills, their confidence grows.

Eventually the manager becomes so far removed from the source of feedback about the actual consequences of management decisions they make, that they completely lose touch with the frontline.

It is from this position of managerial experience and perceived strength that so many change initiatives are conceived and launched.

(2) Up to 75% of an organisation's natural leaders and informal networks sit outside of the formal management structure

In start ups, and very small businesses, staff have a direct and in-depth connection with what they do and the results that are generated. There is usually a strong sense of ownership of tasks. Lines of communication between staff and the business owner will usually be informal and direct, and a strong sense of community develops.

Roll the clock forward a few years and, if the business is fortunate enough to still be in existence and succeeding, the owners may decide to expand.

At this point, processes become more formalised and structured, and layers of management are introduced. As the business continues to expand the owners/investors seek to expand further and having developed a successful business model look to develop their initial success through replication.

Whilst replication is essential to business expansion it inevitably introduces a level of "de-skilling" as business processes are defined and documented, and increasing levels of IT and automation are introduced.

It is around this point that employees experience increasing levels of disconnection from the informality and easy communication of the original (and smaller) business as the formality of the "newish" management structures and business processes are introduced and increasing numbers of new employees are recruited.

Roll the clock forward a few more years and management are looking to maintain or increase productivity and profitablity by introducing process improvements. The disconnect increases...

Roll the clock on a bit further and the first disconnect we discussed above - "Management detachment from direct feedback"- really starts to kick in and so the disconnect increases...

To compensate for this loss of immediacy, intimacy, camaraderie and the ability to resolve stuff quickly without recourse to formal processes and structures, staff develop their own informal "work-arounds" to problems and informal networks occur naturally and "natural leaders" emerge.

This then is the genesis of what is referred to as the "shadow organisation" and what leads to the proliferation of an organisation's informal networks. This is also the fertile soil in which much resistance to change grows.

And yet it is within these informal networks that disconnected management can rediscover the energy and dynamics to successfully deal with resistance to change...

Resistance to Change - Working With Supportive Sub-Cultures to Overcome It

Resistance to change is the inevitable consequence when senior management overlook the people related issues that are crucial to success, but there is a further, closely related, reason and that is to do with organisational culture.

There is no single "golden bullet" that guarantees a successful change initiative, and that overcomes all resistance to change. Dealing with resistance to change is based on a composite understanding of a number of inter-related factors, including: clarity about what you are doing and why; good leadership; an appropriate change model and methodology; and clear understanding of what is required to translate the change vision and strategy into actionable steps.

Understanding the cultural composition of your organisation

One often-overlooked yet important dimension of resistance to change lies in a clear understanding of the cultural composition of your organisation.

The process that leads to this understanding involves a thorough cultural mapping and analysis focusing on the key questions of "How we look now" and "How we want to look in future". You need to define a cultural framework for the organisation that identifies the:

(1) Dominant-culture of the company now, how it really is now

(2) Espoused-culture - what senior management think (or wish) the culture is - often reflected in so called "mission statements"

(3) Desired-culture - how it will all look after a successful change initiative

But you need to go deeper than that and specifically, you need to know how to identify and connect with all of the "sub-groups" or sub-cultures in your organisation that will assist or resist the change initiative. These can be categorised as:

"Regressive-subcultures" and "Subversive-subcultures"

There are sub-cultures that are "regressive" and who show resistance to change, and there are sub-cultures that are "subversive" and who will go beyond mere resistance to change and seek to undermine it.

"Emergent-subcultures" and "Aspirational-subcultures"

Fortunately, there are other sub-cultures that are "emergent", moving forward and receptive to change but doing so "unknowingly" (that is without full conscious awareness of the significance of their attitudes and behaviour). These people just naturally and automatically seek to do things in the best way possible, and they are naturally open-minded about change.

Better still tho, there are sub-cultures that are "aspirational" and who embrace change and seek it positively. These sub-cultures behave knowingly (that is with full conscious awareness of what they are doing). These are the people who are constantly seeking to "up their game" and who are naturally change-positive.

It is these last two groups who will be key to overcoming resistance to change and who need to an integral part of what John Kotter refers to as your "coalition for change".

Change Management - What is the Appropriate Leadership Response to Change?

Historically, in times of recession and economic slow down, the organisational response has been "slash and burn" on costs, and to focus on and streamline business processes to squeeze out ever greater efficiencies.

In the recession of the early 90's, the focus was all about achieving those efficiencies by creating and putting in place processes that would deliver those efficiencies regardless of the human cost.

You may recall the period after the last recession when "Business Process Re-engineering" was very popular? And the focus was always on the process and not the people - and getting "buy-in" was once described by a change agent friend of mine as "like trying to get a bunch of turkeys voting in favour of Christmas"!

Lack of leadership and management failure

All too often, change management is largely reactive to issues that show up on the board's radar rather than driven by any strategic intent or innovation. Typically the three main drivers for change are:

• Increased efficiency
• Cost reduction
• Corporate restructure

Essentially this is all about stripping out cost rather than innovation to create added customer value.

The research evidence shows that in these conditions, change initiatives are frequently badly thought out, managing change in the workplace is poorly executed and many change initiatives do not succeed in achieving their stated objectives. The responsibility for this lies predominantly with the directors and senior management.

Change management is often seen by directors and senior management as a sort of "magical box of tricks" that will somehow get them through the aspect of change they don't like handling, the people issues, so that they can get to the aspect they do like handling - which is the money.

This also reflects the all too frequent lack of clarity of what the change initiative is intended to deliver, and a "business case" for change based on knee-jerk reactions.

In these conditions, change management is imposed from the top-down, and little if any consideration is given to the need and business benefit of winning hearts and minds.

So the majority on the receiving end of these edicts spend most of their time doing just enough to "be seen to be wanting" to comply, but in reality, resisting the change and despising and resenting those "on high" who impose this stuff on them.

The reality is that all too often, directors and senior managers sacrifice the needs and feelings of their employees in the interests of keeping their shareholders happy.

The appropriate response

So in short, the appropriate response to change is one that actually works!

What works is an approach that addresses the root cause of human resistance to change:

• That looks beyond the organisational "synergies", cost reductions and service improvements, and identifies those people who will be impacted by the change.
• That thoroughly assesses what those impacts will be.
• That recognises and addresses the emotional issues arising and the personal transitions that accompany the organisational change.
• That provides leadership, supported by management processes, and practical, tactical support that deal directly with these impacts.
• That does so in ways that work as well for the people within the organisation as they do for the organisation.

Stephen Warrilow

www.strategies-for-managing-change.com

---

Change Management - Harnessing the Energy

Traditional approaches to change management have been based around the principles of Newtonian physics and in particular the 3 laws of motion which, broadly stated, suggest that things don't change until an external force is applied; that the rate of change is proportional to the force applied and inversely proportional to the size of the organisation, and that for every action applied there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Contrary, however, to this comforting traditional Newtonian world-view of fixed scientific certainties and universal laws that are predictable and replicable, contrary to our societal and cultural belief systems, we now know through the insights and perspectives of quantum physics, that the universe [and everything in it] is a single gigantic field of energy.

This energy field is an undivided whole in a constant state of dynamic flux. Perhaps even more disturbingly, from this has emerged the understanding that everything is interconnected as part of that whole. Leaving aside the science, this interconnection is also increasingly and disturbingly apparent in the global political, economic, environmental and technological scale and forces of change, and the speed at which they take place.

So it seems that the sages of the major world philosophical and religious traditions were right after all. We live in a world of constant change - a "dynamic flux of interconnection". Unfortunately, most of us are not very well equipped to deal with this reality.

Insights gained in the field of quantum physics go even further and suggest that every manifestation of "slowed down energy" that appears in the physical world as a "tangible something" remains at a sub atomic level simply as energy. Thus human beings can be regarded as fundamentally energy beings.

From this perspective we are energy beings functioning in an environment that is an energy field. So change management and motivating people to respond constructively to change is essentially all to do with energy. In practical terms this means energising, enthusing or inspiring people. So we are really talking about the importance of emotions.

Themes that are emerging in the sphere of change management are increasingly reflecting the need to respond to and harness this energy dimension - and specifically by stressing the importance of emotional connection.

To take a couple of brief examples of thought leaders in the world of leadership and change management:

(1) Jon Katzenbach

One of Katzenbach's themes is people's anxiety over change can be eased by the skilful transformational leader's ability to tune in to such concerns and take them seriously.

In "Peak Performance: Aligning The Hearts and Minds in your Employees", Katzenbach observes that the leaders of high performing companies create strong emotional bonds with their employees, through which they transmit positive emotions about the challenges being faced and destination being worked towards. Katzenbach argues that the key to encouraging people is via inspirational motivation that has more to do with figuring out how to connect them emotionally to their work than throwing money or promotions at them. Key actions include:

• Tapping into positive emotions
• Managing one-on-one
• Avoiding force
• Aligning one's self with others

(2) John Kotter

A key theme of Kotter's famous 8 Step Change Model, and a recurring theme in recent interviews is the need to establish and maintain a sense of urgency around the need for change that runs deep throughout the organisation. Kotter suggests that for a change initiative to be successful, 75% of a company's management needs to support the change.

In 'Making Change Real - The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations', John Kotter [with co author Dan Cohen] says that the single biggest challenge facing leadership in a change process is just getting people to change their behaviour, and that is achieved by dealing with the emotional dimension:

"All through our lives we have been taught to over-rely on what you might call the memo approach - the 19 logical reasons to change - and we've under-relied on what Dan Cohen and I found is much more effective, which is presenting something that is emotionally compelling. People change their behaviour when they are motivated to do so, and that happens when you speak to their feelings."

Clearly, leading and managing organisational change is all about creating and transmitting energy, and emotions are particularly dynamic expressions of energy. People are motivated when they are inspired. For people to be inspired means, literally means, to have life and energy breathed into them. Do you as a change leader inspire your people?

Change Management - Survival of the Most Responsive

Charles Darwin famously said that:

"It isn't the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones who are most responsive to change"

Any organisation whose processes, behaviours and cultures have evolved around a perception and belief in a fixed and static environment, are finding that they have a limited effectiveness in the fluid reality that we are all currently experiencing. Survival depends on continuous change.

For your organisation to survive and prosper in this climate your feedback processes and behaviours need to be aligned to the reality of your external environment - or you die.

But in reality it's even harder than that. It's not just about catching up with what is changing all around you - it's about doing it faster than your competition. So in a very real sense your survival and success in organisational life isn't merely based on your ability to simply change - survival and success is based on your ability to change faster.

In recent interviews John Kotter makes the disturbing point that the marginal rate of change is increasing - and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. In his view, many organisations just can't keep up with the speed of change.

We used to believe that change occurs in cycles and waves that ebb and flow. This may be accurate over long time spans of hundreds of years, but in the present the rate of change is continually increasing, and the blunt reality is that continuous change is hard work and deeply unpopular.

2 key themes emerge:

(1) The failure of BPR and the over emphasis on process at the expense of people

Probably the single biggest reason for the astonishingly high 70% failure rate of ALL business change management 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.

The major lesson of the last recession was that big companies had to learn fast how to think and behave like the small companies they originally were. This led to the emergence and growth of Business Process Re-engineering [BPR] that advocated that organisations get back to the basics and reexamine their roots.

The objective behind this was to attempt to achieve a massive step change in productivity and profitability by transcending organisational boundaries and focusing on processes above tasks, jobs, functions and people.

A primary area of initial focus was establishing customer needs and requirements and defining and implement the feedback processes to ensure that the organisation stayed aligned to changes in market conditions and customer requirements.

Only trouble was that it didn't work. Michael Hammer co-author of "Re-engineering the Corporation"- the arch proponent of the process led approach to change and business improvement - revised his opinion and claimed that 70% of all BPR initiatives failed [Hammer and Champy 1993]:

"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."

Even Hammer now recognises that the people aspects of change are "the overwhelming" issue!

(2) The emerging recognition of the "people factor" and the importance of the emotional dimension

Change is an emotional business. The failure to address the human impacts of change is at the root of most failed change initiatives. It is not enough just to "manage" change; people need to be led through change.

One of the major change leadership priorities is recognising and addressing the inner psychological and emotional adjustments that people move through in response to external organisational change events.

William Bridges was the first thought leader to draw the important distinction between external organisational change and what he defines as the internal "transition" that people need to move through as they make a successful emotional and psychological adjustment to the changed circumstances that they are experiencing as as a result of the organisational change.

In my view, this is an extremely important aspect of change leadership and one that, in my experience, is invariably over-looked.

So often it is just assumed by senior management that people can and will accept an organisational change.

But, the failure to recognise and attempt to address this dimension is a significant cause of organisational change failure. The larger the human impact of the organisational change the greater the need for some form of "transitional support".

Many directors and senior managers have the emotional detachment and objectivity to make clear, sound strategic decisions yet seem to lack the "counter-balancing" self-awareness and emotional intelligence to realise the impact of their decisions.

This omission frequently [and unnecessarily] delays or jeopardises the implementation of their strategic vision and the realisation of the organisational benefits.

Change management is about how you take an organisation from Position A to Position B, in the fulfilment or implementation of a vision and a strategy. The whole art of this is to how to carry your people with you, so that the envisaged benefits of the vision and strategy are actually realised.

The perspective of "change management as survival of the most responsive to changing markets and customer requirements" can be expanded to include the perspective of "change management as the survival of the most responsive to the needs and emotional requirements of the people employed by the organisation - who satisfy those changing customer requirements".

Change Management - The Horror of it All

The failure rate of all significant change initiatives is approximately 70%. A recent reader of an article on my website challenged me re the source of that often quoted statistic. Here is a brief summary of a cross section of sources that I sent her and that reveal the horror of it all...

A global survey conducted in 2008 by McKinsey and Company offered the insight that organisations could only hope to survive by constantly changing - but approximately two thirds of all change initiatives fail.

In a recent "Call for Papers" for the "Journal of Change Management" [for a special issue entitled "Why Does Change Fail and What Can We Do About It?"] Professor Bernard Burnes of Manchester Business School makes the observation that whilst this does seem to be an astonishingly high rate of failure, it is in line with most of the literature on change which consistently quotes failure rates of between 60% and 90% [Burnes, 2009]. For example, consultants Bain and Co claim the general failure rate is 70% but they indicate that it rises to 90% for culture change programmes. And in relation to the failure rate of BPR initiatives, prevalent in the 1990s, Hammer and Champy [1993] claimed a failure rate of 70%.

According to "Research Findings on Program Failure and Success" by Patrick Morley, Ph.D. Chairman and CEO, "Man in the Mirror": "Two-thirds of Total Quality Management (TQM) programs fail, and reengineering initiatives fail 70% of the time [Senge, 1999]. Change initiatives crucial to organizational success fail 70% of the time [Miller, 2002]"

A "Computer Weekly" study [2003] on 421 IT projects revealed the following:

# 16% of all projects successfully completed [that is they were delivered in scope on time and on budget]
# 75% of all projects were "challenged" in the following ways:
# 35% behind schedule
# 59% over budget
# 54% under-delivered on planned scope

A survey conducted by the Standish Group [2003] showed that 66% of IT projects are either totally abandoned or fail against a measure of budget, scope, time or quality (i.e. '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 Labour government have wasted 26 billions of pounds on failed projects. An investigation by "The Independent" newspaper has found that the total cost of Labour's 10 most notorious IT failures is equivalent to more than half of the budget for Britain's schools in 2009.

The world of mergers and acquisitions fares little better. The "value enhancement trend for 10 years of KPMG International's MandA survey" shows that on average only 28% of mergers have resulted in enhanced shareholder value, whilst an average of 36% have led to a reduction in shareholder value. This value assessment is based on company share price movements relative to average industry sector movement during a two-year period.

In the film "Apocalypse Now", the anti-hero Colonel Kurtz mumbles through the closing sequences:

"...the horror...horror has a face...and you must make a friend of horror..."

Any impartial assessment of all of the main types of significant change initiatives reveals the sheer horror of the colossal human and financial wastage perpetrated by organisational and political leaders.

The knowledge of how to successfully lead and manage change is out there in the public domain in a growing body of easily accessible work.

So it must be an appalling combination of ignorance and arrogance that causes the organisational and political leaders who preside over this litany of costly failures to be so desperately under-prepared as they embark on further change initiatives without facing [let alone making a friend of] the horror of change failure.

Or, god help us, has the marginal rate of increase in change now largely overtaken many organisations' capacity to deal with it?

Change Management - Don't Confuse the Map With the Territory

The ability to exercise intellectual intelligence and think in terms of abstract concepts and models is extremely useful in change management. This can be thought of in terms of the conceptual "map" of change. The ability to employ emotional intelligence and empathise and see and feel things from the other guy's perspective is equally important as it employs direct knowledge of the experience or "territory" of change. A very necessary aspect of the transition that people make when they are promoted from an active operational role to a management role is a degree of detachment. Unfortunately too many executives become so detached from the day-to-day territory of everyday work at the frontline that they lose the ability to empathise.

William Bridges suggests that this detachment from the territory [so often defended as important to remain 'strategic'] actually causes these executives to lose touch with the realities of the territory to the extent that they just assume that people can and will acquiesce to the organisational changes that they seek to impose on them. However, Kotter, Bridges and other thought leaders have shown that this failure to address the territory is an important cause of failure in organisational change initiatives. Furthermore, they suggest that the greater the human impact of the proposed organisational change the greater the need for attention to the territorial frontline impact.

It is my experience that whilst many executives have the objectivity and emotional detachment to function strategically, they all too frequently lack the "counter-balancing" emotional intelligence to understand the human impact of their strategic decisions. It is also my experience that many organisational leaders come from financial or technical backgrounds and just do not have the required people skills, insight or experience to lead their people through the emotional and psychological impacts of their proposed organisational changes.

What they do not realise is that lack of attention to, and connection with, the territory impedes or jeopardises the realisation of the organisational benefits that they have envisaged in their strategic map. In my view, the concepts of "emotional intelligence" sets the bar very high in terms of what is expected of a change leader in addressing the territory of change.

A big theme of "emotional intelligence" and what Goleman calls "Primal Leadership" is that the leader's emotions are "contagious". Goleman speaks of the leader's emotions "infecting" the organisation - an interesting choice of words - he doesn't say "affecting". I was taken by surprise when I first read about research by Goleman [and colleagues] into the impact of the leader's emotional performance on organisational performance: 70% of the emotional climate and 20-30% of organisational performance - these are big numbers!

- What's your personal territory and experience of all this?
- How do you feel you measure up to these standards of behaviour?
- What emotional climate do you create?
- Do you see any connection between your emotional states and the performance of your organisation?
- Who in your team of direct reports would most benefit [performance -wise] by a change in the emotional dimension of your behaviour?

John Kotter also makes the point that a good way of addressing the territory of change is by telling visual stories with high emotional impact. He uses the illustration of Martin Luther King who did not address the crowd in front of the Lincoln Memorial with the words: 'I have a great strategy' and then proceed to illustrate it with 5 good reasons why it was a great strategy. As we all know, he uttered those famous words: "I have a dream," and then he illustrated and explained to the people what his dream was - and he did this in a way that was full of high emotional impact.

- Have you got so far up the "greasy pole" that you are in danger of becoming out of touch with the impact of how you are on your people?
- Do you communicate with high emotional impact?
- Does your communication pass the "Martin Luther King Test"?
- How does this constant focus on the need for emotional connection and emotional impact on your people make you feel?
- Are you in touch with the territory of the change initiative you are mapping?

Leading Change - Leading People Through Change in Difficult Times

According to John Kotter, in a recent interview in "Management Consulting News", many organisations are now much better at managing and guiding change. But unfortunately the current rate of change that we are all experiencing is faster than the rate at which organisations are improving, and he feels that gap is increasing. Here are 5 implications:

(1) The marginal rate of change is increasing [and will continue to do so]

We used to believe that change occurs in cycles and waves that ebb and flow. This may be accurate over long time spans of hundreds of years, but in the present the rate of change is continually increasing.

(2) Leaders need to get better at leading and managing change

As I see it, Kotter's core message is that leaders need to get better at leading people through change, putting it all together and managing the whole messy business. To deal with this organisational leaders need to get better at all of the eight steps that the Kotter 8 step change model identifies as necessary for successful change

(3) The sense of urgency re change needs to permeate the whole organisation

Leaders need to pay more attention to the early stages of the change process, that is: creating a feeling of urgency, clarifying the vision, good communication and empowering people to take action. And the one key place to focus is on creating and sustaining the sense of urgency about the need for change, and that starts at the top.

In my own experience I have observed that the people at the top may think there's plenty of sense of urgency, yet if you drill down into the organisation, you so often find that it's not really there and certainly not what it needs to be to sustain change throughout the duration of a successful initiative.

The absence of a universally shared sense of urgency in an organisation embarking on change is as Kotter aptly puts it: "like trying to build a pyramid on a foundation of empty shoe boxes"!

(4) Leaders' deeds are more important than their words

Often during the change process, difficult things have to be addressed, such as layoffs, restructurings and redeployments. In these situations, the leaders deeds are as, or probably more, important than their words:

"When people see it being done right, their fear level quite rationally goes down and their conviction grows that the plan can work..."

(5) Leaders need to understand what does and doesn't work before embarking on change

The key piece of advice that Kotter offers is for organisational leaders to take the time to get themselves informed about what does and doesn't work - before launching into action with a change initiative. A perspective that I thoroughly endorse and as he says:

"If you get that knowledge upfront, it can save you great grief and money later on."

Change Management - Strategies For Managing Change - A Practitioners Masterclass

"One key reason why implementation fails is that practicing executives, managers and supervisors do not have... a good understanding of the multiple factors that must be addressed, often simultaneously, to make implementation work." [Fevzi Okumus]

Change management is a messy business fraught with complexity and many things that can, and usually do, go wrong. This is reflected in the 70% failure rate of all change initiatives.

Underlying the many things that can and do go wrong, are a number of related factors:

# 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

# The lack of process to directly address the human aspects of change

# A lack of clarity and lack of communication

# The lack of a language and contextual framework to articulate and manage the necessary processes of change

# Failure to address the energy and emotions associated with change

# Failure to understand the difference between "new capabilities" and "realised benefits" [and why it matters]

# Failure to understand and apply the "business as usual" test to establish whether it is "incremental change" or a "step change" [and failing to understand why this matters]

To navigate these pitfalls and achieve a successful change initiative requires attention to 3 key domains, namely:

(1) Leadership that directly addresses the transitions and emotional dimension of those impacted by the change, and provides inspirational motivation.

(2) A change model and methodology that covers "the multiple factors that must be addressed"

(3) Action management that shows and assists people with the specifics of exactly what is required of them.

Here is a brief Practitioners' Masterclass highlighting key themes within these 3 domains.

Leadership

Change initiatives need to be led and managed. The major failure of leadership in most change initiatives is that there isn't any!

What is required is leadership that recognises the importance of the emotional dimension, and specifically that understands the 2 levels of change impact:

(1) Organisational change - new processes, procedures and structures

(2) Personal transition - emotional and psychological

Most change initiatives employ methods that ignore the emotional dimension of the personal transition. Ignoring the transition is a major cause of change resistance and change failure. Leading your people through this transition is as important as managing the organisational change

Leadership that is capable of addressing these factors requires high levels of emotional intelligence - which is frequently not evident in senior executives.

So, for any business leaders reading this I will say this: "Your level of emotional awareness - and the extent to which you embrace and harness the emotional dimension of your organisation - is directly linked to change success and ongoing organisational performance."

Culture

Culture can be defined simply as how people behave within a group context.

Organisational culture is the single biggest determinant of how an individual will behave within an organisational environment. Culture will over-ride education, intelligence and common sense

So, you cannot make a successful step change [and realise the benefits] without changing your organisational culture

To change the culture you need:

(1) To identify it and understand it

(2) A framework and language to communicate it

(3) Tools and processes to change it

Change models and methods

"A good understanding of the multiple factors that must be addressed" is arrived at with a change model and methodology that bridges the gap between the high level "big-picture" strategic vision and a successful implementation at the front-line. There are a number of change models that are popular and frequently used, notably John Kotter's "8 Step Change Model" and the Prosci "ADKAR Change Model". These, and other models, have great merit and provide a structured focus to the management of a change initiative.

The difficulty with these and most established change models is that, quite understandably, they tend to cover one major aspect or dimension of the totality of what is involved. That does not invalidate any specific model and supporting methodology, but it does leave gaps.

The main specific criticism that can be made of most of these models is that they are tactical and project focused; they are not strategic and they are not sufficiently holistic and broad in scope to fully address the human factors that are the commonest causes of failure.

There is currently not a change model that sits between the leadership dimension and the strategic review process, and the lower level of project and task-level management and implementation.

Programme level implementation

For this reason, I have adapted some of the core concepts and processes of programme management added a preliminary cultural analysis combined with a pre-programme review and planning process utilising my EEMAP process©, and I offer these to you in the form of a simple, programme-based model, designed to fill the strategy-project gap.

In summary, my programme-based model is designed:

# To facilitate the key thought processes that are necessary for a successful change initiative

# To support the leadership processes outlined by Kotter, Bridges Transition Model and to provide a framework and context for the project / task level ADKAR model

It has 5 main objectives:

(1) To bridge the gap between vision and implementation

(2) To ensure that the "cultural analysis" and "pre-programme review and planning process" do take place

(3) Clarity about how and why things will be different after the change

(4) To identify, assess and mitigate the impacts of the change on all those who will be affected by it

(5) Ensure that the envisaged organisational benefits are realised

Task level implementation

A common mistake that many managers make is to assume that because they have told people what they want to happen then it will happen. It won't!

Although people will hear what you say when you outline your vision and strategy, and will probably agree with you, at the individual level, most of them are not able to translate it into productive purposeful action.

People are very different in the ways they process information, interpret life, and in the ways they are motivated. This is not because they are stupid, and does not necessarily mean that they are resistant to your vision and strategy, but it does often mean that the jump from vision and strategy to practical implementation is too big for them to make - without support.

This means that managing change, at the task level, requires hands-on detailed management [micro management on occasions] in the specifics of what to do and how to do it. This is especially necessary during the early stages.

As change leader, it really is your responsibility not to make assumptions, and to "grind out" and communicate those actionable steps.

So often, this just doesn't happen. Leaders don't lead and managers don't manage. It is assumed that: "they've been told what to do and they'll go away and do it". Wrong! It is assumed that there isn't time and it isn't necessary to take the time to translate the ideas communicate those actionable steps. Wrong again!

It is up to you to define and communicate those actionable steps, and to manage your people through the process of implementing and integrating those steps as the new modus operandi.

Change Management - Strategies For Managing Change - A Practitioners Quick Guide

Before proceeding with a proposed change initiative, you need to be very clear about this:

# The organisational need for the change
# The specifics of what will change
# The benefits of the change
# The impacts of the change

Here is a Practitioners Quick Guide to a change initiative. It is based on these simple, fundamental questions:

(1) Blueprint for change - why am I doing this and how is it going to be different when I've made the change?

The more detail and clarity you have about this, the greater the chance you have of being able to communicate it to your staff and customers - and the higher the probability that you will actually achieve it! In terms of how your changed organisation will be different, you need to know precisely:

# How it will be different?
# Where it will be different?
# Why it will be different?
# When it will be different?

(2) Benefits of change- how is it going to benefit the organisation and how will I know it has benefited the organisation?

For each anticipated benefit you need to know the following:
# Description - what precisely is it?
# Source - What new capabilities will make it possible?
# Observation - what differences should be noticeable before and after?
# Attribution - where in the future business operations does it arise?
# Measurement - how will it be measured?
# Dependencies - on other projects, tasks, risks and issues?
# Timescales - when is it expected to occur and over what period of time will realisation of the benefit take place?
# Management - who is responsible for ensuring that the organisational change delivers the benefit

(3) Impacts of change - who is it going to affect, how will it affect them and how will they react?

Recognise the difference between organisational change and the individual transition - the emotional dimensions that accompanies those changes:

# Transition is not the same as change
# Change is what happens to you - externally
# Transition is what you experience - internally

3 simple questions to start the process

# What is changing?
# What will actually be different because of the change?
# Who is going to lose what?

(4) Communicating change - what can I do to help them accept the change and to get them "on side"?

The single biggest barrier to effective workplace 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.

The key FACTUAL questions that your communication strategy needs 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 needs to address:

# What is changing?
# Clearly express the change leader's understanding and intention
# What will actually be different because of the change?
# Who is going to lose what?


(5) Risks of change - what risks and issues do i have to face and how can i mitigate those risks?

The preparation for and documentation of the Blueprint for change will have identified most of the issues that you are likely to face. You now need to take this a stage further and examines risk in terms of the:

# Potential
# Likelihood
# Timing
# Impact

Risk is assessed across various levels:

# Strategic level
# Programme level
# Project level
# Operational or "business as usual" level

The risk assessment process should involve all key stakeholders who are impacted by the change. The risks are logged in a risk log and regularly reviewed.

(6) Steps to change - what steps do I have to take to make the changes and get the benefit?
This is the area where most people are strongest and focus most of their attention: "What steps do I have to take to make the changes and the get the benefit of this change?"

Key elements include:

# Your first big decision is the "Business as Usual" test - is it Incremental Change or a Step Change? If it's a step change, then you need some form of structured methodology and people to fulfil the leadership and management roles.
# A project management led approach is not enough. You need the wider perspective of a programme-based approach to manage the links, overlaps and dependencies between tasks and projects, and to apply the principles outlined in this guide.
# As you plan the change initiative, you need an overall schedule of all of the initiatives and projects that are going to deliver the new capabilities that will realise the benefits.
# This needs to be supported by the collation of all project documentation e.g. business case, description, dependencies, risks, deliverables, dates etc.
# The over-riding purpose of the programme plan is to ensure that nothing jeopardises the delivery of the capabilities and realisation of the benefits

(7) Leading and managing change - how am I going to lead and manage all this so that it happens and I succeed?

Most change methods ignore the emotional dimension of the personal transition. Ignoring the transition is a major cause of change resistance and change failure. Leading your people through this transition is as important as managing the organisational change

Many directors and senior managers have the emotional detachment and objectivity to make clear, sound strategic decisions yet seem to lack the "counter-balancing" self-awareness and emotional intelligence to realise the impact of their decisions. This omission frequently [and unnecessarily] delays or jeopardises the implementation of their strategic vision and the realisation of the organisational benefits

The primary causes of failure in change initiatives are all people related, and to do with emotions. So change leadership requires some very special qualities in the person[s] leading the change. This is more to do with "being" than "doing". What you do, and how you do it will be largely determined by how you are as a person.

# Are you inspired in your heart and mind, and do you show it?
# Are you connected to yourself, the world and the people around you? [I don't mean as a concept but as felt or sensed reality]?
# Do you have a vision and communicate it with passion and purpose?
# Do you allow your emotion to speak to others in a way that transcends their mind, and speaks to their heart?
# Do you pay personal attention to others in a way that engages them and generates their trust and commitment?
# Do you genuinely care about others, what they want, and how you can help them meet their objectives as well as yours?

Managing Transitions - 3 Guidelines To Successful Change Management

Change is an emotional business. The failure to address the human impacts of change is at the root of most failed change initiatives. It is not enough just to "manage" change; people need to be led through change.

One of the major change leadership priorities is recognising and addressing the inner psychological and emotional adjustments that people move through in response to external organisational change events.

William Bridges draws the important distinction between organisational change and what he calls the "transition" that people need to move through in order to successfully adapt to the new circumstances arising from that change.

Here are 3 important guidelines that Bridges' highlights:

(1) "Transition readiness" is best indicated by an organisations legacy of change initiatives

Whenever Bridges' team undertake an assignment one of their first assessments is of what he calls "transition readiness". This is important he says as it "provides an important early indicator of what lies ahead, and one of the things we inquire into is the organisation's history of changes, both those that worked and those that didn't."

A deeper dimension to this enquiry into the change initiative legacy is to look at the scars left by successful as well as unsuccessful initiatives.

From a change leadership perspective, it is crucial to understand and address the scar tissue left by previous initiatives. The most effective way of doing this is by actions - by demonstrating that you as change leader do understand and care, and that you are taking steps to mitigate the pain.

(2) Executive detachment from everyday work impedes transition

So often it is just assumed by senior management that people can and will accept an organisational change.

But, the failure to recognise and attempt to address this dimension is a significant cause of organisational change failure. The larger the human impact of the organisational change the greater the need for some form of "transitional support".

Many directors and senior managers have the emotional detachment and objectivity to make clear, sound strategic decisions yet seem to lack the "counter-balancing" self-awareness and emotional intelligence to realise the impact of their decisions.

This omission frequently [and unnecessarily] delays or jeopardises the implementation of their strategic vision and the realisation of the organisational benefits.

Bridges: "These executives' detachment from the everyday work-work, which is so often defended as necessary to be 'strategic,' keeps these people from understanding what has to happen for changes to work as planned."

The higher you are in your organisation - the more quickly you are likely to move through your own personal transition. You know the intended destination, and have probably known for some while. Most of your people however, will not have this head start.

Your people won't "just get it"; they will take at least as long as you did to transition and quite probably a lot longer.

As a change leader, it is important to understand why your people will not necessarily embrace change.

In my view, the reality is that most organisational leaders come from technical, operational or financial backgrounds and, to put it bluntly, do not have the necessary people skills or experience to lead their people through a transition.

Bridges makes the point that it is significant that: "the great leaders, from Moses and Caesar to Lincoln and Lee, were people who deeply understood the people they were leading."

(3) Debrief thoroughly after each change initiative - find out what worked and what didn't

Bridges says that senior executives are usually in such a hurry to move on to the next change that they fail to learn from each concluding change initiative. He says that executives need to undertake a careful debrief to identify key lessons learnt.

He shares this anecdote: "I first realized that after helping a 50,000-person technology company close a fabricating plant. It went very well--they actually doubled productivity per person during the closedown process! But when they called to ask for help in shutting another facility, I discovered that they had 'forgotten' what they had done with the previous shutdown."

In Bridges' view, senior executives need to regard every change initiative as a thorough learning experience, to ascertain what worked and didn't and why.

Leading Change - The Man in the Mirror

"I'm starting with the man in the mirror
I'm asking him to change his ways
And no message could have been any clearer
Take a look at yourself and then make a change" [ Michael Jackson]

By convention we speak of change "management" but the reality is that change involves leadership as well as management, and change leadership requires some very special qualities in the person[s] leading the change. This is more to do with "being" than "doing". What you do, and how you do it will be largely determined by how you are as a person. The traditional and fairly typical transactional leadership seeks to motivate followers by appealing to their own self-interest - using the conventional "carrot and stick" approach to gain compliance. Transactional leaders accept the goals, structure and culture of the existing organisation. They must do so because this type of leadership is ineffective at bringing significant change.

In contrast, transformational leadership is about leadership that creates positive change in the followers, whereby they take care of each other's interests and act in the interests of the group as a whole. Here, the leader enhances the motivation, morale and performance of his follower group. Transformational Leadership begins with self-awareness - awareness of our own thoughts and feelings, and how these affect your actions, and how they affect the states of others. As your awareness grows, you begin to see your own inner motivating force, what drives you - your passions and values - and how these affect your thoughts, feelings and actions, and those of others.

It is about leading with an integrity and authenticity that resonates with others, and inspires them to follow, and also, in some cases to become leaders themselves. This is an important aspect of what Daniel Goleman has termed "Emotional Intelligence". So, as change leader, let's take a look in the mirror:

# Are you inspired in your heart and mind, and do you show it?
# Are you connected to yourself, the world and the people around you? [I don't mean as a concept but as felt or sensed reality]?
# Do you have a vision and communicate it with passion and purpose?
# Do you allow your emotion to speak to others in a way that transcends their mind, and speaks to their heart?
# Do you pay personal attention to others in a way that engages them and generates their trust and commitment?
# Do you genuinely care about others, what they want, and how you can help them meet their objectives as well as yours?
# How does reviewing this list of questions make you feel?

Practitioners Masterclass - Leading Your People Through Change, Putting it All Together

The full title for this article is "Practitioners Masterclass - Leading your people through change, putting it all together and managing the whole messy business".

That last bit is important because change is a messy business. For the vast majority of us, "change as something-to-be-resisted and avoided" is the "default setting". Much of what we do as human beings is motivated by this inbuilt need to keep things as they are - to preserve the boundaries around "my life" - to preserve my survival, my safety and my comfort.

However, when change proves unavoidable, we automatically, and often unconsciously, attempt to work out "what does this means for me"? So, in practical and pragmatic terms, the root of all resistance to [or acceptance of] change can be reduced to uncertainty over the "W.I.F.M" question - that is: "what's in it for me?"

At the organisational level, the appropriate response to change is one that actually works! What works is an approach that addresses the root cause of human resistance to change:

- That looks beyond the organisational "synergies", cost reductions and service improvements, and identifies those people who will be impacted by the change.
- That thoroughly assesses what those impacts will be.
- That recognises and addresses the emotional issues arising and the personal transitions that accompany the organisational change.
- That provides leadership, supported by management processes, and practical, tactical support that deal directly with these impacts.
- That does so in ways that work as well for the people within the organisation as they do for the organisation.

So in this brief "Practitioners Masterclass" we will focus on the 3 broad areas that a successful change sponsor needs to address:

(1) Leadership

Although we speak of "change management", it as more accurate to think in terms of "change leadership". People need to be led through the transitions they experience as they are impacted by organisational change.

Change leadership has 3 primary functions.

- Firstly, to recognise the emotional dimension and to lead those impacted by the change through the stages of personal transition. The importance of this is directly proportionate to the scope, scale and duration of the change initiative.
- Secondly, to provide the energy and inspirational motivation that builds and sustains momentum.
- Finally, to ensure a balanced alignment of organisational needs and the personal needs of all stakeholders.

(2) Change model and method

The first of the two management aspects of a change initiative is the change model and methodology that will bridge the gap between the high level "big-picture" strategic vision and a successful implementation at the front-line.

This needs to be considerably broader in scope than a typical project led -"task oriented" approach, as it addresses the human factors and deals directly with the commonest causes of failure [that are always people related].

In my view, the recommended model is one that is based on an expanded and holistic programme management based approach.

(3) Action management

The second of the two management aspects of a change initiative is the translation of the vision and strategy into actionable steps.

This may or may not include project management, but the primary emphasis is on showing - and assisting people with - the specifics of exactly what is required of them.

Motivation in the Workplace - People Are Motivated When They Are Inspired

To understand motivation in the workplace from a change management perspective, we need to be aware of the context in which this takes place.

In the current economic climate, the key drivers for change in corporate life are all to do with increased efficiency, cost reduction and corporate restructuring.

Balancing organisational and individual interests

There is a potential fundamental problem here in that these drivers as expressed by directors in terms of organisational performance are not necessarily aligned to the personal needs and drivers of the workforce.

So we can see from the outset that successful change management is the result of a balancing of enterprise performance requirements with individual fulfillment needs.

The literature of motivation research from Maslow onwards has highlighted the complexity and multi-faceted nature of human needs.

The process theories of motivation clearly showed that people need to have the WIFM [what's in it for me] question answered. They need to see the steps and they need to believe that they can do it and that they want to. They also need to believe in the equity or fairness of what you as leader tell them.

Rationality vs the emotional dimension

So, on the one hand we are rational beings focused on meeting what may be regarded as our survival needs - very loosely expressed in terms of pay and rations - and are prepared to enter into a Faustian pact with our employers on the basis of an initially perceived mutuality of interest.

But, on the other hand, the emotional dimension rapidly emerges as that initial perception of mutuality of interest rapidly dwindles as - especially in the current climate - we are expected to improve our performance, to produce more for no more [maybe less] money and often with fewer resources.

In my experience the commonest leadership style in many corporates [and especially in change management initiatives in the UK] is essentially transactional in nature, that is, based on "getting the job done", short-term and hard data focused, and supports the structures and systems that maximise efficiency and guarantee short-term profits. This approach clearly works but it is short-term in focus.

The direct effect of this is that the transactional focus on motivation in the workplace in change management contexts is nearly always on getting the quickest return, and in change management terms by fixing the most obvious and glaring problems.

An alternative to the typical transactional leadership prevalent in many corporates today is transformational leadership - a concept first brought to prominence by James MacGregor Burns in his book Leadership [1978] - and one that is deeply resonant with the practise of inspirational motivation in the workplace. Transformational leadership is all about values and meaning, and a purpose that transcends short-term goals and focuses on higher order needs.

The transformational leadership concept is supported by post Maslovian motivation research notably Herzberg, ERG theory and subsequent research and theories which highlight that for all our rationality we are primarily emotional creatures driven [in broad terms] by growth needs for achievement, recognition, personal development and personal growth.

Motivation in the workplace is all to do with energy

Another perspective taken from the field of quantum physics has shown that the universe is a single gigantic field of energy, and that this energy field is an undivided whole in a constant state of dynamic flux.

From this has emerged the understanding that everything is interconnected as part of that whole and every manifestation of "slowed down energy" that appears in the physical world as a "tangible something" remains at a sub atomic level simply as energy. Thus we as human beings can be regarded as energy beings. We are quite literally energy beings functioning in an environment that is an energy field. So motivation in the workplace - or anywhere else for that matter - is ultimately all to do with energy.

If the object of motivation is the activation of goal-oriented behaviour then it follows that people are motivated when they are inspired. For people to be inspired means - literally means to have life and energy breathed into them. So, in practical terms, motivation in the workplace means energising, enthusing or inspiring people.

Motivation in the workplace and specifically in change management contexts is all about creating and transmitting energy, and emotions are particularly dynamic expressions of energy.

Inspiring motivation in the workplace at a tactical level

At the day-to-day tactical change management level this all boils down to finding out what matters to your people individually, as Dick Axelrod, the co-founder of US based Axelrod Group Inc [a consulting firm that pioneered the use of employee involvement to effect largescale organisational change] says:

"Despite the best of intentions, leaders are still employing change management processes that produce disengagement. Creating an engaged organisation requires leaders to choose a strategy that, by its very nature engages people."

He offers this summary analysis:

3 tips to inspiring motivation in the workplace

(1) Find out what is important to the other person.
(2) Support others in achieving their goals.
(3) Share what you care about.

Noetic Sciences - What is Noetic Science and Why is it Important to Change Management?

According to The Institute of Noetic Sciences - founded by former Apollo 14 astronaut Dr Edgar Mitchell - Noetic Science is "the exploration into the nature and potentials of consciousness using multiple ways of knowing-including intuition, feeling, reason, and the senses."

Noetic science is all about the exploration of what can be called "the inner cosmos" of the mind [comprising consciousness, soul, spirit] and how it relates to "the outer cosmos" of the external material and physical world.

The origin of the word "noetic" is the ancient Greek "nous", for which there is no direct literal translation in English. It refers to what can be called "inner knowing," and as the Institute explains it is "a kind of intuitive consciousness-direct and immediate access to knowledge beyond what is available to our normal senses and the power of reason."

So this exploration is a science of discovery of the human mind. It is much wider and in scope than traditional psychology has been so far.

The importance of noetic science in relation to our understanding of change management

Clearly the insights, discoveries and paradigm shifts that result from these investigations and developments have profound implications for (a) the development of human knowledge and (b) a major shift in the relationship between human consciousness and human experience.

At the practical and pragmatic level of organisational change, there are, in my current perception, potentially significant implications and these can [currently] be summarised as:

# The power of the mind [both individually and collectively] to influence the manifestation of material phenomena - specifically in terms of what we experience.

# The role of consciousness and awareness - especially in leaders - in identifying possibilities, solutions and outcomes.

# The causal connection between beliefs and experience. Conventional thinking suggests that experiences shape our beliefs. Whilst that may be partially so it is not the whole picture. There is growing evidence from the noetic sciences and quantum physics that the reverse also occurs in that our beliefs shape our experience.

# The use of the intuitive faculty in arriving at rapid accurate diagnosis in business problem solving and decision making.

"Beyond positions, beyond beliefs, lies a place where the mind can truly open to the possibilities of any given moment."

Myers Briggs - Most People Don't Think Like You Do - Why This Matters in Change Management

The Myers Briggs [personality or psychological] Type Indicators are based on the theories of Carl Jung, which he developed to attempt to explain the differences between normal healthy people. Based on observations, Jung came to the view that differences in behaviour are the result of innate tendencies of people to use their minds in different ways. This has important implications for change management.

More blind to this than we realise

I know the idea of individual differences may seem obvious, yet over the years I have heard so many CEOs and directors complaining that their managers or colleagues "just don't get it". In my experience, the reality is that most of us are blinder to this than we realise. And that includes me!

I worked with a guy as a close colleague and friend for 17 years and I could not figure out why he didn't grasp and respond to some of my ideas and initiatives. He is a highly intelligent, gifted and experienced businessman with great people skills and yet this was a significant source of friction between us for years.

It was only when I became acquainted with the Myers Briggs Type Indicators, a few years ago, that I saw for quite clearly that our types were very different. For the first time I could see that he wasn't being difficult, he functioned completely differently to me. The result of this was that our mental processes were very, very different and despite the many things we had in common, despite our 17 years of shared business experience, there were certain areas where we "not on the same page".

The components of the Jungian types

As I studied the Myers Briggs Type Indicators and looked carefully at the 8 basic mental functions observed by Jung [on Myers Briggs types are based], I moved beyond understanding "why" we had not communicated to understanding "how" we did not communicate.

Based on Jung's observations, the start point is that when people's minds are active they are involved in one of two mental activities:

(1) Taking information in = Perceiving
(2) Processing information to reach to conclusions = Judging

He identified two ways in which people take in information, based on:

(3) Real time tangible data = Sensing
(4) Holistic,"big picture", pattern/connection data = Intuition

He identified two ways in which people process information, based on:

(5) Analytical logical, objective, "tough" evaluation = Thinking
(6) Empathic, subjective, "tender" assessment = Feeling

Jung also observed that people tend to be energised by one of two orientations:

(7) People, experience, activity, external focus = Extraversion
(8) Ideas, memories, emotions, inner focus = Introversion

Finally, Jung observed that people use these different functions in a form of hierarchy of preference, described by Jung as functions, namely: Dominant, Auxiliary, Tertiary and Inferior. The Myers Briggs model brings these components together into 16 very different types.

Less than 1 in 50 people think like you do

The practical ramifications of all this are considerable, and especially in a change management situation. Given that the typical Myers Briggs type of a business leader [ENTJ] is only shared by approximately 1.8% of the population, then chances are that less than 1 in 50 of your people will think in the same way you do. Yet as leader of a change initiative, you face the difficult challenge of getting your people to deliver your new change idea and achieve the organisational benefits that you anticipate.

But the reality is that people process information in very different ways. They also interpret life in different ways and are motivated by different things. Although they will hear what you say when you outline your vision and strategy, and will probably agree with you, most of them are not able to translate all that into productive purposeful action.

Grinding out your vision into actionable steps

This is not because they are stupid, and does not necessarily mean that they are resistant to it but it often does mean that the jump from vision and strategy to practical implementation is too big - without practical support. So this means that during the early stages they need hands-on, detailed management, [even micro management on occasions] in the specifics of how to do it.

As change leader - it really is your responsibility to make no assumptions, and to "grind out" and communicate those actionable steps.

So often, this just doesn't happen in change management situations. Leaders don't lead and managers don't manage. It is assumed that: "they've been told what to do and they'll go away and do it". Wrong! It is assumed that there isn't time and it isn't necessary to take the time to do this. Wrong again!

A significant aspect of successfully guiding your people through the implementation process is to take full account of their individual differences as you spell out the actionable steps you wish them to take. By doing this you will stand a far higher chance of integrating these processes as the new modus operandi.

This may seem like a lot of work - and the truth is that yes it often is! But, it will prove a very good investment of your time and you will dramatically increase your chances of success. Even more pertinently, you also save you an inestimable amount of time, hassle and money in the future.

In summary: an integral aspect of successful leadership in change management situations lies in understanding:

• The drivers of human motivation
• The difference in individual motivational drivers
• Individual differences in mental processing functions

And also, in realising that not only are their motivational drivers different to yours - their thought processes are different as well.

Maslow Theory of Motivation - The Basis of Successful Change Management

The Maslow Theory of Motivation also known as "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs" model was developed between 1943-1954, and first widely published in "Motivation and Personality" in 1954. Starting from the premise that each human being is motivated by needs that are inborn, presumably as a result of tens of thousands of years of evolution, here is the hierarchy in ascending order:

(1) Physiological needs

These are the very basic needs such as air, water, food, sleep, sex, etc. When these are not satisfied we may feel sickness, irritation, pain, discomfort, etc. These feelings motivate us to alleviate them as soon as possible to establish homeostasis. Once they are alleviated, we may think about other things.

(2) Safety needs

These have to do with establishing stability and consistency in a chaotic world. These needs are mostly psychological in nature. We need the security of a home and family. However, if a family is dysfunction, i.e., an abused child - cannot move to the next level as she is continuously fearful for her safety. Love and a sense of belonging are postponed until she feel safe.

(3) Love and needs of belonging

Humans have [in varying degrees of intensity] a strong desire to affiliate by joining groups such as societies, clubs, professional associations, churches and religious groups etc. There is a universal need to feel love and acceptance by others.

(4) Self-Esteem needs

There are essentially two types of esteem needs: self-esteem resulting from competence or mastery of a task; and the esteem and good opinion of other people.

(5) The need for self-actualisation

Maslow theory of motivation proposes that people who have all their "lower order" needs met progress towards the fulfilment their potential. Typically this can include the pursuit of knowledge, peace, esthetic experiences, self-fulfillment, oneness with God, nirvana, enlightenment etc. So ultimately this is all to do with the desire for self transcendence.

A paradigm shift that forms the basis for good leadership and successful change management

The Maslow theory of motivation brought a new face to the study of human behaviour. Maslow was inspired by greatness in the minds of others, and his own special contribution to the field of motivational psychology led to the creation of the concept of Humanistic Psychology. Most psychologists prior to Maslow had focused on the mentally ill and the abnormal. In complete contrast the Maslow theory of motivation investigated and attempted to define positive mental health.

In so doing, he instigated a paradigm shift via Humanistic Psychology - predicated on the belief that humans are not simply blindly reacting to situations, but trying to accomplish something greater. This new approach represented in the Maslow theory of motivation became the source of many new and different therapies, all grounded in the belief that people possess the inner resources for growth and healing and that the point of therapy is to help remove obstacles to individuals' achieving them.

It also forms the basis of much current understanding of what constitutes good leadership and forms a major foundation of prevailing models and theories of successful change management. The most fundamental value of this theory is to emphasise and remind those of us involved in leading and managing change of the complexity and multi-facted nature of human needs and motivational drives. Closely aligned to that observation is the difficult realisation that people have transcendent needs and aspirations as well as the more prosaic needs of survival and "pay and rations".

ERG Motivation Theory - Refines Maslow and 3 Key Applications to Change Management

Clayton Alderfer developed ERG Theory and simplified Maslow's hierarchy of needs into a shorter set of three needs: Existence, Relatedness and Growth ['ERG'].

- Existence - At the basic level is the need to stay alive and safe, now and in the foreseeable future. This includes Maslow's physiological and safety needs.

- Relatedness - When we feel safe and secure, we deal with our social needs and are now interested in relationships with other people and our status from which we derive a sense of identity and position within our immediate society. This includes Maslow's love/belonging and esteem needs.

- Growth - Ultimately we seek growth and self creative expression both for ourselves and for our environment. When we are successfully growing, we feel a sense of wholeness, achievement and fulfilment. This includes Maslow's self-actualization and transcendence.

ERG Theory recognizes that the order of importance of the three categories may vary for each individual depending on the circumstances experienced by the individual and also how the individual perceives the circumstances. According to ERG theory, focusing exclusively on any one need at a time will not optimise effective motivation. The leadership and management implications of this are that change leaders need to recognise that people have multiple needs to satisfy simultaneously.

The theory is less rigid than Maslow's famous "Hierarchy of Needs" theory, and human needs cluster more neatly around the three categories proposed by Alderfer than the five categories in Maslow's hierarchy. Also, unlike Maslow, he saw these needs as a continuum rather than a hierarchy, and thus his theory is more flexible.

There seems to a general consensus that ERG theory provides a workable explanation of the dynamics of human needs as experienced and expressed in organisational situations specifically in terms of why and how people's needs can change:

• To their own changing circumstances
  
• Their own perception of those circumstances
  
• To their leaders framing and communication of those circumstances

Practical Application of ERG Theory to change leadership and management

(1) Impact of change initiative programme planning

At the planning stage of a change initiative, and especially when reviewing the full impact of the change initiative on the people who will be affected by it, ERG theory informs the stakeholder mapping and analysis process and influences the communication strategy, as it focuses change leaders on the impacts of these 3 fundamental human needs.

(2) Leadership and communication

From a change management and change leadership perspective, understanding and recognising these needs can influence and shape a communication strategy and a leadership style. For example, there will be circumstances where, in the interests of business survival, recognition and growth needs are not going to be met as existence needs are addressed - such as in major restructuring and business turnarounds where redundancies and major change to working practises are announced.

People are flexible and will adjust and accept this is if it is communicated honestly and accurately and if leadership is acting effectively by addressing the emotional dimension.

The framing or positioning of a situation by the change leader is extremely important - especially in knowing how to focus and present a communication about a difficult situation in such a way that it addresses Relatedness needs and Growth needs wherever possible and appropriate.

I am not talking about "spin" deception or any other form of manipulation here, rather I am referring to a leadership style that is based on the qualities and characteristics of transformational leadership and primal leadership. A leadership style that takes full and honest account of the impact of change on people and especially acknowledges and leads them through the transitions that they have to move through if the change is to be successful.

(3) Leadership skill

In my view, a key change leadership skill is knowing how to reframe a difficult situation in such a way that even though there are [or could be] threats to existence needs, people are motivated by addressing their relatedness and growth needs. An obvious and extreme illustration of this is the wartime political leader of military leader.

Longer term, it is [in my view] the responsibility of the change leader to create, stimulate, sustain values and beliefs that will foster and engender relatedness and growth as the norm, and to integrate them into the organisational culture.

Herzberg Motivation Theory - How Hygienic is Your Change Management Initiative?

Frederick Herzberg's Hygiene Theory [also known as Two Factor Theory] concludes that certain factors - "motivators" - in the workplace result in job satisfaction; factors such as challenging work, recognition, and responsibility. However there are other factors that if absent, lead to dissatisfaction and de-motivation; factors such as status, work environment, location, job security, salary and benefits. These things do not motivate and are called "Hygiene" factors because, like hygiene, their presence will not make you healthier, but absence can cause health deterioration.

Practical application of Herzberg Motivation Theory to change management

(1) The planning of a change initiative

At the planning stage of a change initiative, Hygiene theory will influence the stakeholder mapping and analysis process and it will help to shape the the communication strategy. It focuses change leaders on the impacts of these 2 dimensions of human needs - motivators and dissatisfiers.

(2) The communication skills of leadership

There will be difficult business circumstances and especially where job losses are involved and where significant change to business practises are involved - that neither sets of needs are going to met particularly well, or even at all.

People are flexible and will adjust and accept this - at least for a while - is if it is communicated honestly and accurately.

It is my view that the framing or positioning of a situation by the change leader is extremely important - especially in knowing how to focus and present a communication about a difficult situation with lots of dissatisfiers in such a way that it does address motivation factors needs at the earliest opportunity.

I say this because in my view, people will be more likely to tolerate difficult circumstances if they are led well and in such a way that their aspirational and higher motivational needs are addressed.

(3) Judgement call and reframing

In my view, a key change leadership skill is knowing how to make the "judgement call" on how and when to communicate to people news that in terms of Herzburg motivation theory is going to dissatisfy them and demotivate them.

And - here's the key to this I feel - having the capacity to "reframe" the situation fairly quickly in such a way that people's motivation needs [or at least some of them] are addressed.

Acquired Needs Theory - Goal Seeking Achievers - Key to a Change Initiative

Acquired Needs Theory describes three types of motivational needs: Achievement, Authority and Affiliation.
These were first identified and described and by David McClelland in "The Achieving Society" [1961]. David McClelland was a pioneer in the field of workplace motivational thinking, and was a proponent of competency-based assessments in favour of IQ and personality based tests.

In summary, the theory states that needs are formulated over time by our experiences. We will tend to have one of these needs that affects us more powerfully than others and thus affects our behaviors, and they fall into three general categories of needs:

(1) Achievement

Achievers seek to excel and appreciate frequent recognition of how well they are doing. They will avoid low risk activities that have no chance of gain. They also will avoid high risks where there is a significant chance of failure.

(2) Affiliation

Affiliation seekers look for harmonious relationships with other people. They will thus tend to conform and shy away from standing out. The seek approval rather than recognition.

(3) Power

Power seekers want power either to control other people (for their own goals) or to achieve higher goals (for the greater good). They seek neither recognition nor approval from others -only agreement and compliance.

Acquired needs theory focuses on those with an achievement motivation, and David Mclelland stated as a result of his experiments and research that:

(1) Most people do not possess a strong achievement-based motivation

(2) Those people who do, display a consistent behaviour in setting goals.

Acquired needs theory indicates the following characteristics and attitudes of achievement-motivated people:
- Achievement of objectives matters more than material or financial reward
- Greater personal satisfaction is felt by achieving the goal than from receiving praise or recognition
- Money is regarded as a measure of success, but not the end in itself
- Neither status nor security are prime motivations
- Accurate quantitative feedback is essential, because it enables measurement of success
- Achievement-motivated people constantly looking for ways of doing things better
- Achievement-motivated people will gravitate towards jobs and responsibilities that challenge them and satisfy their needs - for example sales and business leadership and management
- Achievement-motivated people have the capacity to set high personal goals that they believe to be attainable

Applying Acquired Needs Theory to change management

Acquired needs theory indicates that people with a strong need for achievement, make the best leaders - provided they develop the people skills necessary to get the best results from their people.

So find the people who are achievement oriented and who have the necessary people skills - they may not always be in the obvious roles - and forge them into a small team to help lead and manage your change initiative.