fasset skills development€¦ · web viewbridges describes three phases of transition: ending,...

Managing ChangeHandbook

February 2010

Facilitated by

Faranani Facilitation Services Pty Ltd

The views expressed in this document are not necessarily those of Fasset’s.

INDEXSECTION 1: CONTEXT FOR CHANGE.........................................................................................5

1.1 INTRODUCTION.....………………………………………………………………………………………5

1.2 UNDERSTANDING WHAT CHANGE IS..............................................................................................6

1.3 THE ROLE OF CHANGE IN THE ORGANISATON..............................................................................14

1.4 DRIVERS OF CHANGE....................................................................................................... 16

1.5 EFFECTS OF CHANGE...................................................................................................... 17

1.6 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS IN CHANGE MANAGEMENT.................................................... 21

1.7 PLANNED VS. REACTIVE CHANGE........................................................................................ 25

SECTION 2: IMPLEMENTING CHANGE.....................................................................................27

2.1 GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT........................................................................ .28

2.2 CHANGE MANAGEMENT MODELS............................................................................................... .28

2.3 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN THE CHANGE PROCESS.............................................................49

2.4 TRENDS IN CHANGE MANAGEMENT.............................................................................................58

2.5 MANAGING CHANGE IN THE SECTOR.................................................................................. 59

2.6 FACTORS IN SELECTING A CHANGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY......................................................61

2.7 CHANGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES..........................................................................................62

2.8 CREATING AN ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE THAT EMBRACES CHANGE MANAGEMENT......................65

2.9 DEVELOPING A CHANGE MANAGEMENT PLAN..............................................................................69

2.10 THE ROLE OF THE CHANGE AGENT...........................................................................................72

2.11 HOW HR/SDF CAN DELIVER CHANGE MANAGEMENT RESULTS...................................................81

2.12 WHY CHANGE MANAGEMENT OFTEN FAILS................................................................................88

2.13 MEASURING THE IMPACT OF CHANGE PROCESSES.....................................................................90

SECTION 3: ADAPTING TO CHANGE......................................................................................100

3.1.CREATING RESILIENT ORGANISATIONS......................................................................................100

3.2.DO’S AND DON’TS OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT...........................................................................104

3.3.CONSEQUENCES AND MISTAKES IN CHANGE MANAGEMENT........................................................105

3.4. INNOVATION PRACTICES TO ENHANCE CHANGE MANAGEMENT SUSTAINABILITY...........................110

Managing Change Handbook (2010) 1

3.5. MANAGING RISKS IN THE CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROCESS.......................................................111

3.6 MANAGING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE........................................................................................113

REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... 116117

HANDY RESOURCES.........................................................................................................119120

USEFUL LINKS....................................................................................................................119120


Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAP Advanced Administrative Procedures

ADKAR Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement

ATM Automated Teller Machine

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CFO Chief Financial Officer

CMO Change Management Office

CRM Customer Relationship Manager

EEO Equal Employment Opportunities

ERP Enterprise Resource Planning

GST General Systems Theory

HR Human Resources

ICT Information and Communication Technology

IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention Control

MBA Master in Business Administration

MOC Management of Change

OCM Organisational Change Management

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PDCA Plan, Do, Check, Act

PLOT Plan, Lead, Operate, Track

RBM Results Based Management

RVO Resilient Virtual Organisations

ROI Return on Investment

RTSC Real Time Strategic Change

SAP Systems Application and Products

SDF Skills Development Facilitator

SOE Standard Operating Environment


WIIFM What’s In It For Me

Section 1: CONTEXT FOR CHANGE

Introduction

“It is not the strongest species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones

are most responsive to change” - Charles Darwin

Change Management is a structured approach to transitioning individuals, teams, and

organisations from a current state to a desired future state. The current definitions of

Change Management include both organisational change management processes and

individual change management models, which together are used to manage the people

side of change. Some thoughts on change to consider: Change takes time, but quick-

fixes are essential to make it happen; You can’t expect to get every-thing right, so expect

mistakes - don’t be paralysed at the possibility of making them; If you wait until all the

facts are in, they’ll be useless and the biggest risk in change processes is to avoid taking

any risks at all.

This handbook is a concentrated collection of various aspects of managing change in

organisations, teams and in individuals. Aspects covered include definitions and

concepts related to change, principles of change, drivers of change, models of change

management, the role of the change agent, the role that Human Resources (HR) and the

Skills Development Facilitator (SDF) specifically play within change processes, dealing

with resistance to change, and selecting and applying various strategies for change. As

part of the added value component of this handbook, additional aspects such as trends

in Change Management, which include Real Time Strategic Change (RTSC), as well as

creating Organisational Resilience, are included. Specific organisational Change

Management assessment tools are added as annexures for participants to use when

back in the work environment. These assessment tools will be discussed in the session

and focus on:

Organisational – Type Inventory

Organisational Climate Questionnaire


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual

Organisational Readiness Inventory

Practical suggestions, steps and tips are given on specific aspects of Change

Management that related to selecting a change strategy, creating a culture that

embraces change and understanding why change often fails. Finally, useful references,

tools and handy links are provided for further reading and use by the reader.

Understanding What Change Is

“To cope with a changing world, an entity must develop the capacity of shifting and

changing - of developing new skills and attitudes; in short, the capability of learning” –

A De Gues, The Living Company

Change Management is most commonly understood from four basic perspectives which

define the concept, process and tools. In thinking about what is meant by “Change

Management,” at least four basic definitions come to mind:

1. The task of managing change.

2. An area of professional practice.

3. A body of knowledge.

4. A control mechanism.

The Task of Managing Change: The first and most obvious definition of “Change

Management” is that the term refers to the task of managing change. The obvious is not

necessarily unambiguous. Managing change is itself a term that has at least two

meanings. One meaning of “managing change” refers to the making of changes in a

planned and managed or systematic fashion. The aim is to more effectively implement

new methods and systems in an ongoing organisation. The changes to be managed lie

within and are controlled by the organisation. (Perhaps the most familiar instance of this

kind of change is the “change control” aspect of information systems development

projects). However, these internal changes might have been triggered by events

originating outside the organisation, in what is usually termed “the environment.” Hence,

the second meaning of managing change, namely, the response to changes over which

the organisation exercises little or no control (e.g. legislation, social and political

upheaval, the actions of competitors, shifting economic tides and currents, and so on).

Researchers and practitioners alike typically distinguish between a knee-jerk or reactive

response and an anticipative or proactive response.


An Area of Professional Practice: The second definition of Change Management is

"an area of professional practice." There are dozens, if not hundreds, of independent

consultants who will quickly and proudly proclaim that they are engaged in planned

change, that they are change agents, that they manage change for their clients, and that

their practices are change management practices. There are numerous small consulting

firms whose principals would make these same statements about their firms. And, of

course, most of the major management consulting firms have a change management

practice area. Some of these change management experts claim to help clients manage

the changes they face – the changes happening to them. Others claim to help clients

make changes. Still others offer to help by taking on the task of managing changes that

must be made. In almost all cases, the process of change is treated separately from the

specifics of the situation. It is expertise in this task of managing the general process of

change that is laid claim to by professional change agents.

A Body of Knowledge: Stemming from the view of change management as an area of

professional practice there arises yet a third definition of change management: the

content or subject matter of change management. This consists chiefly of the models,

methods and techniques, tools, skills and other forms of knowledge that go into making

up any practice. The content or subject matter of change management is drawn from

psychology, sociology, business administration, economics, industrial engineering,

systems engineering and the study of human and organisational behavior. For many

practitioners, these component bodies of knowledge are linked and integrated by a set of

concepts and principles known as General Systems Theory (GST). It is not clear

whether this area of professional practice should be termed a profession, a discipline, an

art, a set of techniques or a technology. For now, suffice it to say that there is a large,

reasonably cohesive albeit somewhat eclectic body of knowledge underlying the practice

and on which most practitioners would agree — even if their application of it does exhibit

a high degree of variance.

A Control Mechanism: For many years now, Information Systems groups have tried to

rein in and otherwise supervise on changes to systems and the applications that run on

them. For the most part, this is referred to as “version control” and most people in the

workplace are familiar with it. In recent years, systems people have begun to refer to this

control mechanism as “change management” and "configuration management."

Moreover, similar control mechanisms exist in other areas. Chemical processing plants,

for example, are required by OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) to


satisfy some exacting requirements in the course of making changes. These fall under

the heading of Management of Change or MOC.

The Content and Process Dimensions of Change

Organisations are highly specialized systems and there are many different schemes for

grouping and classifying them. Some are said to be in the retail business, others are in

manufacturing, and still others confine their activities to distribution. Some are profit-

oriented and some are not for profit. Some are in the public sector and some are in the

private sector. Some are members of the financial services industry, which

encompasses banking, insurance, and brokerage houses. Others belong to the

automobile industry, where they can be classified as original equipment manufacturers

or after-market providers. Some belong to the health care industry, as providers, as

insured’s or as insurers. Many are regulated, some are not. Some face stiff competition,

some do not. Some are foreign-owned and some are foreign-based. Some are

corporations, some are partnerships, and some are sole proprietorships. Some are

publicly held and some are privately held. Some have been around a long time and

some are newcomers. Some have been built up over the years while others have been

pieced together through mergers and acquisitions. No two are exactly alike.

The preceding paragraph points out that the problems found in organisations, especially

the change problems, have both a content and a process dimension. It is one thing, for

instance, to introduce a new claims processing system in a functionally organised health

insurer. It is quite another to introduce a similar system in a health insurer that is

organized along product lines and market segments. It is yet a different thing altogether

to introduce a system of equal size and significance in an educational establishment that

relies on a matrix structure. The languages spoken differ. The values differ. The cultures

differ. And, at a detailed level, the problems differ. However, the overall processes of

change and change management remain pretty much the same, and it is this

fundamental similarity of the change processes across organisations, industries, and

structures that make change management a task, a process, and an area of professional

practice.

Types of Change That Organisations Need to Manage

Different kinds of change require different strategies and plans to effectively gain

employee engagement and acceptance of change. The three types of change that occur


most frequently in organisations are developmental, transitional and transformational.

Change management theories effectively support how to deal with developmental and

transitional change, but are less effective at dealing with successfully implementing

transformational change. A critical step in determining which approach to use in

overcoming resistance to implementing organisation change is to determine which type

of change the organisation is experiencing.

Developmental Change

Companies are continually processing developmental change to some degree in order to

stay competitive. This type of change should cause little stress to current employees as

long as the rationale for the new process is clearly conveyed and the employees are

educated on the new techniques. When senior management want to bring about a major

change such as the decision to close a division, if the company attempted to implement

developmental change as the first step in streamlining the business, employees may be

more likely to accept the change. The employees could see that the company attempted

different strategies before determining that closing the division was the only option.

Transitional Change

A corporate reorganisation, merger, acquisition, creating new products or services, and

implementing new technology are examples of transitional change. Transitional change

may not require a significant shift in culture or behaviour but it is more challenging to


implement than developmental change. The future of the organisation is unknown when

the transformation begins which can add a level or discomfort to employees.

The outcome of transitional change is unknown so employees may feel that their job is

unstable and their own personal insecurities may increase. Education on the new

procedures should be commenced at each stage of the new process. This will allow

employees to feel that they are actively involved and engaged in the change. As an

employee’s level of engagement in the new procedure increases, their resistance to

change may decrease. Management should be cognizant of the impact and stress these

changes will have on their employees. The company should continue to inform the

employees of their status and offer support in helping them deal with the personal

adjustments they will be forced to make.

Transformational Change

When companies are faced with the emergence of radically different technologies,

significant changes in supply and demand, unexpected competition, lack of revenue or

other major shifts in how they do business, developmental or transitional change may

not offer the company the solution they need to stay competitive. Instead of methodically

implementing new processes, the company may be forced to drastically transform

themselves.

The Change Process as Problem Solving and Problem Finding

A very useful framework for thinking about the change process is problem solving.

Managing change is seen as a matter of moving from one state to another, specifically,

from the problem state to the solved state. Diagnosis or problem analysis is generally

acknowledged as essential. Goals are set and achieved at various levels and in various

areas or functions. Ends and means are discussed and related to one another. Careful


planning is accompanied by efforts to obtain buy-in, support and commitment. The net

effect is a transition from one state to another in a planned, orderly fashion. This is the

planned change model.

The word “problem” carries with it connotations that some people prefer to avoid. They

choose instead to use the word “opportunity.” For such people, a problem is seen as a

bad situation, one that shouldn’t have been allowed to happen in the first place, and for

which someone is likely to be punished — if the guilty party (or a suitable scapegoat)

can be identified. For the purposes of this paper, we will set aside any cultural or

personal preferences regarding the use of “problem” or “opportunity.” From a rational,

analytical perspective, a problem is nothing more than a situation requiring action but in

which the required action is not known. Hence, there is a requirement to search for a

solution, a course of action that will lead to the solved state. This search activity is

known as “problem solving.”

From the preceding discussion, it follows that “problem finding” is the search for

situations requiring action. Whether we choose to call these situations “problems”

(because they are troublesome or spell bad news), or whether we choose to call them

“opportunities” (either for reasons of political sensitivity or because the time is ripe to

exploit a situation) is immaterial. In both cases, the practical matter is one of identifying

and settling on a course of action that will bring about some desired and predetermined

change in the situation.

At the heart of change management lies the change problem, that is, some future state

to be realized, some current state to be left behind, and some structured, organized

process for getting from the one to the other. The change problem might be large or

small in scope and scale, and it might focus on individuals or groups, on one or more

divisions or departments, the entire organisation, or one or on more aspects of the

organisation’s environment.

At a conceptual level, the change problem is a matter of moving from one state (A) to

another state (A’). Moving from A to A’ is typically accomplished as a result of setting up

and achieving three types of goals: transform, reduce, and apply. Transform goals are

concerned with identifying differences between the two states. Reduce goals are

concerned with determining ways of eliminating these differences. Apply goals are


concerned with putting into play operators that actually effect the elimination of these

differences (see Newell & Simon).

As the preceding goal types suggest, the analysis of a change problem will at various

times focus on defining the outcomes of the change effort, on identifying the changes

necessary to produce these outcomes, and on finding and implementing ways and

means of making the required changes. In simpler terms, the change problem can be

treated as smaller problems having to do with the how, what, and why of change.

The change problem is often expressed, at least initially, in the form of a “how” question.

How do we get people to be more open, to assume more responsibility, to be more

creative? How do we introduce self-managed teams in Department W? How do we

change over from System X to System Y in Division Z? How do we move from a

mainframe-centered computing environment to one that accommodates and integrates

PCs? How do we get this organisation to be more innovative, competitive, or productive?

How do we raise more effective barriers to market entry by our competitors? How might

we more tightly bind our suppliers to us? How do we reduce cycle times? In short, the

initial formulation of a change problem is means-centered, with the goal state more or

less implied. There is a reason why the initial statement of a problem is so often means-

centered and we will touch on it later. For now, let’s examine the other two ways in which

the problem might be formulated — as “what” or as “why” questions.

As was pointed out above, to frame the change effort in the form of “how” questions is to

focus the effort on means. Diagnosis is assumed or not performed at all. Consequently,

the ends sought are not discussed. This might or might not be problematic. To focus on

ends requires the posing of “what” questions. What are we trying to accomplish? What

changes are necessary? What indicators will signal success? What standards apply?

What measures of performance are we trying to affect?

Ends and means are relative notions, not absolutes; that is, something is an end or a

means only in relation to something else. Thus, chains and networks of ends-means

relationships often have to be traced out before one finds the “true” ends of a change

effort. In this regard, “why” questions prove extremely useful.

To ask “why” questions is to get at the ultimate purposes of functions and to open the

door to finding new and better ways of performing them. Why do we do what we do?

Why do we do it the way we do it? Asking “why” questions also gets at the ultimate


purposes of people, but that’s a different matter altogether, a “political” matter, and one

we’ll not go into in this handbook.

The Approach taken to Change Management Mirrors Management's Mindset

The emphasis placed on the three types of questions just mentioned reflects the

management mindset, that is, the tendency to think along certain lines depending on

where one is situated in the organisation. A person’s placement in the organisation

typically defines the scope and scale of the kinds of changes with which he or she will

become involved, and the nature of the changes with which he or she will be concerned.

Thus, the systems people tend to be concerned with technology and technological

developments, the marketing people with customer needs and competitive activity, the

legal people with legislative and other regulatory actions, and so on. Also, the higher up

a person is in the hierarchy, the longer the time perspective and the wider the range of

issues with which he or she must be concerned.

For the most part, changes and the change problems they present are problems of

adaptation, that is, they require of the organisation only that it adjust to an ever-changing

set of circumstances. But, either as a result of continued, cumulative compounding of

adaptive maneuvers that were nothing more than band-aids, or as the result of sudden

changes so significant as to call for a redefinition of the organisation, there are times

when the changes that must be made are deep and far-reaching. At such times, the

design of the organisation itself is called into question.

Organisations frequently survive the people who establish them. At some point it

becomes the case that such organisations have been designed by one group of people

but are being operated or run by another. Successful organisations resolve early on the

issue of structure, that is, the definition, placement and coordination of functions and

people. Other people then have to live with this design and, because the ends have

already been established, these other people are chiefly concerned with means. This is

why so many problem-solving efforts start out focused on means.

Some organisations are designed to buffer their core operations from turbulence in the

environment. In such organisations all units fit into one of three categories: core, buffer,

and perimeter.


In core units (e.g., systems and operations), coordination is achieved through

standardization, that is, adherence to routine. In buffer units (e.g., upper management

and staff or support functions), coordination is achieved through planning. In perimeter

units (e.g., sales, marketing, and customer service), coordination is achieved through

mutual adjustment (see Thompson).

People in core units, buffered as they are from environmental turbulence and with a

history of relying on adherence to standardized procedures, typically focus on “how”

questions. People in buffer units, responsible for performance through planning, often

ask “what” questions. People in the perimeter units are as accountable as anyone else

for performance and frequently for performance of a financial nature. They can be heard

asking “what” and “how” questions. “Why” questions are generally asked by people with

no direct responsibility for day-to-day operations or results. The group most able to take

this long-term or strategic view is that cadre of senior executives responsible for the

continued well being of the firm: top management. If the design of the firm is to be called

into question or, more significantly, if it is actually to be altered, these are the people who

must make the decision to do so.

Finally, when organisational redefinition and redesign prove necessary, all people in all

units must concern themselves with all three sets of questions or the changes made will

not stand the test of time.

To summarise: Problems may be formulated in terms of “how,” “what” and “why”

questions. Which formulation is used depends on where in the organisation the person

posing the question or formulating the problem is situated, and where the organisation is

situated in its own life cycle.

“How” questions tend to cluster in core units.

“What” questions tend to cluster in buffer units.

People in perimeter units tend to ask “what” and “how” questions.

“Why” questions are typically the responsibility of top management.

In turbulent times, everyone must be concerned with everything.


1.3 The Role of Change in the Organisation

Change management plays an important role in any organisation since the task of

managing change is not an easy one. When we say managing change we mean to say

making changes in a planned and systemic fashion. With reference to the IT projects we

can say the change in the versions of a project and managing these versions properly.

Changes in the organisation or a project can be initiated from within the organisation or

externally. For example a product that is popular among the customers may undergo a

change in design based on the triggering factor like a competitive product from some

other manufacturer. This is an example of external factors that triggers a change within

the organisation. How the organisation responds to these changes is what is more

concerning. Managing these changes come under change management. Reactive and

proactive responses to these changes are possible from an organisation.

Change management is done by many independent consultants who claim to be experts

in these areas. These consultants manage the changes for their clients. They manage

changes or help the client make the changes or take up the task themselves to make the

changes that must be made. An area of change that needs attention is selected and

certain models, methods, techniques and tools are used for making these changes that

are necessary for the organisation.

When there is a process in an organisation it is not an easy task to make changes to this

process immediately. Sometimes a single organisation may have varied business

entities and changes in an entity may be reflected in another entity. In such

organisations changes are not so easy. There are different types of organisations which

have many branches across the world with varied cultures. Implementing a change in

such organisations is a task by itself.

The change process can be thought of as a process which stops the current process,

makes the necessary changes to the current process and the runs the new process. It is

easy said than implemented. Stopping a current process in some industry is fatal for that

organisation. Hence it has to be done in steps which have the minimal effect in the

process. These changes can not take place for a longer time in the organisation since

that may also be a disaster for the organisation. The involvement of the staff concerned

is also very important for the change process to be smooth.


The change process could also be considered as a problem solving situation. The

change that is taking place could be the result of a problem that has occurred. You

should know that a problem is a situation that requires some action to be taken positively

to handle that situation. This positive action is known as problem solving. The change

process could be problem solving for a particular situation. In this process there is a

move from one state to another so that the problem gets solved. The change process is

leaving the current state and moving to the final state through some structured organized

process.

Managing the changes in an organisation requires a broad set of skills like political skills,

analytical skills, people skills, system skills, and business skills. Having good analytical

skills will make you a good change agent. You should evaluate the financial and political

impacts of the changes that can take place. You should know that following a particular

process at that instant would fetch you immediate financial effects and start that process

so that the change process is noted by the management. The workflow has to be

changed in such a manner to reflect the financial changes that are taking place.

Operations and systems in the organisation should be reconfigured in such a manner

that you get the desired financial impact.

Hence change management plays an important role in an organisation. This allows the

organisation to give a reactive or a proactive response to the changes that happen

internally or externally. Knowing the change management and its process would help an

organisation and its processes to be stable.

Performance improvement in organisations is built around three core areas of focus:

Leadership sponsorship

Project management

Change management


This diagram shows the interrelations between these three core elements of

performance improvement in any organisational environment. The application of all

three will result in projects meeting organisational objectives, which directly results in

delivery on time and on budget with a significant return on investment.

Successful change management in organisations therefore requires effective

communication, full and active executive support, employee involvement, organisational

planning and analysis and widespread perceived need for the change. These are the

big five when successful change is achieved.

1.4 Drivers of Change

Organisational change management is becoming increasingly important to the business

community. The intensification of competition from manufacturers in emerging

economies who can produce superior goods at cheaper prices, the introduction of new

technology and changing consumer preferences and tastes can result in companies

having to redefine their business goals and objectives. The following factors are some of

the primary drivers of organisational change.


Inadequate Financial Performance: Companies that fail to achieve financial

benchmarks are forced to evaluate their business objectives and processes. This is one

of the most important drivers of organisational change. If a new competitor enters the

market with cheaper labor or a superior technology, companies that formally enjoyed

prosperity can suddenly find a cannibalization of their market share. A failure to maintain

a competitive presence in the market place can stress company resources and force a

rethink of the opportunity cost of capital and resource redeployment.

Change in Strategic Objectives: If a company shifts its focus form a product centric to

a customer centric orientation, new processes are required to facilitate this re-

orientation. This can result in redundancy to existing staff or manufacturing processes.

Company restructuring from this is a primary driver of organisational change as the old is

replaced with the new.

End of the Product Development Life Cycle: A product can reach the end of its

product life cycle and companies are forced to cut production and operating costs or exit

the market. At this stage some companies sell out or merge with existing competitors.

This results in structural changes to a company’s business processes to either maintain

profitability or refocus on new opportunities.

New Technology: New technology can be a significant driver of organisational change.

Consider the effect the internet is having on old style media and print companies. As

internet access levels increase on a worldwide scale, companies are forced to adapt

their existing operations to shifting consumer preferences. Companies that neglect rising

trends face a diminishing market share to competitors who better understand and

address the demands of their customers.

Mergers and Acquisitions: When companies merge or consolidate operations,

significant costs cutting and a re-engineering takes place. Redundancy and restructure

to align with management objectives drives organisational change. The integration of

two companies creates significant challenges to streamline operations and integrate

existing IT operations into a centralized structure. Consider the implications of merging

two independent billing systems which use different platforms and infrastructure. The

careful dedicated planning required to bring this to fruition is part of the change

management process.


1.5 Effects of Change

Managing change has intended and unintended effects for both organisations, teams

and individuals that are involved in the process. This section contains some of the

effects that you should consider as part of your plans and processes for managing

change.

Managing organisational change will be more successful if you apply simple principles.

Achieving personal change will be more successful too if you use the same approach

where relevant. Change management entails thoughtful planning and sensitive

implementation, and above all, consultation with, and involvement of, the people affected

by the changes. If you force change on people normally problems arise. Change must

be realistic, achievable and measurable.These aspects are especially relevant to

managing personal change. Before starting organisational change, ask yourself: What

do we want to achieve with this change, why, and how will we know that the change has

been achieved? Who is affected by this change, and how will they react to it? How much

of this change can we achieve ourselves, and what parts of the change do we need help

with? These aspects also relate strongly to the management of personal as well as

organisational change.

Do not “sell” change to people as a way of accelerating “agreement” and

implementation. “Selling” change to people is not a sustainable strategy for success,

unless your aim is to be “bitten” at some time in the future when you least expect it.

When people listen to a management high-up 'selling' them a change, decent, diligent

folk will generally smile and appear to accede, but quietly to themselves, they're thinking,

"No chance mate, if you think I'm standing for that load of old nonsense you've another

think coming…" (And that's just the amenable types – the other more recalcitrant types

will be well on the way to making their own particular transition from gamekeepers to

poachers.)

Instead, change needs to be understood and managed in a way that people can cope

effectively with it. Change can be unsettling, so the manager logically needs to be a

settling influence. Check that people affected by the change agree with, or at least

understand, the need for change, and have a chance to decide how the change will be

managed, and to be involved in the planning and implementation of the change. Use

face-to-face communications to handle sensitive aspects of organisational change

management. Encourage your managers to communicate face-to-face with their people


too if they are helping you manage an organisational change. Email and written notices

are extremely weak at conveying and developing understanding.

If you think that you need to make a change quickly, probe the reasons – is the urgency

real? Will the effects of agreeing a more sensible time-frame really be more disastrous

than presiding over a disastrous change? Quick change prevents proper consultation

and involvement, which leads to difficulties that take time to resolve. For complex

changes, refer to the process of project management, and ensure that you augment this

with consultative communications to agree and gain support for the reasons for the

change. Involving and informing people also creates opportunities for others to

participate in planning and implementing the changes, which lightens your burden,

spreads the organisational load, and creates a sense of ownership and familiarity among

the people affected.

For organisational change that entails new actions, objectives and processes for a group

or team of people, use workshops to achieve understanding, involvement, plans,

measurable aims, actions and commitment. Encourage your management team to use

workshops with their people too if they are helping you to manage the change. You

should even apply these principles to very tough change, like making people redundant,

closures and integrating merged or acquired organisations. Bad news needs even more

careful management than routine change. Hiding behind memos and middle managers

will make matters worse. Consulting with people, and helping them to understand does

not weaken your position – it strengthens it. Leaders who fail to consult and involve their

people in managing bad news are perceived as weak and lacking in integrity. Treat

people with humanity and respect and they will reciprocate.

Be mindful that the chief insecurity of most staff is change itself. Senior managers and

directors responsible for managing organisational change do not, as a rule, fear change

– they generally thrive on it. So remember that your people do not relish change, they

find it deeply disturbing and threatening. Your people's fear of change is as great as your

own fear of failure. The employee does not have a responsibility to manage change -

the employee's responsibility is no other than to do their best, which is different for every

person and depends on a wide variety of factors (health, maturity, stability, experience,

personality, motivation, etc). Responsibility for managing change is with management

and executives of the organisation - they must manage the change in a way that

employees can cope with it. The manager has a responsibility to facilitate and enable


http://www.businessballs.com/workshops.htm

http://www.businessballs.com/project.htm

change, and all that is implied within that statement, especially to understand the

situation from an objective standpoint (to 'step back', and be non-judgmental), and then

to help people understand reasons, aims, and ways of responding positively according

to employees' own situations and capabilities. Increasingly the manager's role is to

interpret, communicate and enable – not to instruct and impose, which nobody really

responds to well.

Be wary of expressions like 'mindset change', and 'changing people's mindsets' or

'changing attitudes', because this language often indicates a tendency towards imposed

or enforced change, and it implies strongly that the organisation believes that its people

currently have the 'wrong' mindset, which is never, ever, the case. If people are not

approaching their tasks or the organisation effectively, then the organisation has the

wrong mindset, not the people. Change such as new structures, policies, targets,

acquisitions, disposals, re-locations, etc., all create new systems and environments,

which need to be explained to people as early as possible, so that people's involvement

in validating and refining the changes themselves can be obtained. Whenever an

organisation imposes new things on people there will be difficulties. Participation,

involvement and open, early, full communication are the important factors.

Workshops are very useful processes to develop collective understanding, approaches,

policies, methods, systems, ideas, etc. Staff surveys are a helpful way to repair damage

and mistrust among staff – provided you allow people to complete them anonymously,

and provided you publish and act on the findings. Management training, empathy and

facilitative capability are priority areas – managers are crucial to the change process –

they must enable and facilitate, not merely convey and implement policy from above,

which does not work.

You cannot impose change – people and teams need to be empowered to find their own

solutions and responses, with facilitation and support from managers, and tolerance and

compassion from the leaders and executives. Management and leadership style and

behavior are more important than clever process and policy. Employees need to be able

to trust the organisation. The leader must agree and work with these ideas, or change is

likely to be very painful, and the best people will be lost in the process.

Planning, implementing and managing change in a fast-changing environment is

increasingly the situation in which most organisations now work. Dynamic environments


such as these require dynamic processes, people, systems and culture, especially for

managing change successfully, notably effectively optimising organisational response to

market opportunities and threats. Key elements for success in these dynamic

environments include:

Plan long-term broadly – a sound strategic vision, not a specific detailed plan (the

latter is impossible to predict reliably). Detailed five year plans are out of date two

weeks after they are written. Focus on detail for establishing and measuring delivery

of immediate actions, not medium-to-long-term plans.

Establish forums and communicating methods to enable immediate review and

decision-making. Participation of interested people is essential. This enables their

input to be gained, their approval and commitment to be secured, and automatically

takes care of communicating the actions and expectations.

Empower people to make decisions at a local operating level - delegate responsibility

and power as much as possible (or at least encourage people to make

recommendations which can be quickly approved).

Remove (as far as is possible) from strategic change and approval processes and

teams (or circumvent) any ultra-cautious, ultra-autocratic or compulsively-interfering

executives. Autocracy and interference are the biggest obstacles to establishing a

successful and sustainable dynamic culture and capability.

Encourage, enable and develop capable people to be active in other areas of the

organisation via “virtual teams” and “matrix management”.

Scrutinise and optimise ICT (information and communications technology) systems

to enable effective information management and key activity team-working.

Use workshops as a vehicle to review priorities, agree broad medium-to-long-term

vision and aims, and to agree short term action plans and implementation method

and accountabilities.

Adjust recruitment, training and development to accelerate the development of

people who contribute positively to a culture of empowered dynamism.

Management's responsibility is to detect trends in the macro environment as well as in

the micro environment so as to be able to identify changes and initiate programs. It is

also important to estimate what impact a change will likely have on employee behavior


patterns, work processes, technological requirements, and motivation. Management

must assess what employee reactions will be and craft a change program that will

provide support as workers go through the process of accepting change. The program

must then be implemented, disseminated throughout the organisation, monitored for

effectiveness, and adjusted where necessary. Organisations exist within a dynamic

environment that is subject to change due to the impact of various change "triggers",

such as evolving technologies. To continue to operate effectively within this

environmental turbulence, organisations must be able to change themselves in response

to internally and externally initiated change. However, change will also impact upon the

individuals within the organisation. Effective change management requires an

understanding of the possible effects of change upon people, and how to manage

potential sources of resistance to that change. Change can be said to occur where there

is an imbalance between the current state and the environment.

1.6 Critical Success Factors in Change Management

In today's fast pace business environment where the business landscape continually

changes in response to shifting consumer preferences, new and superior production

processes, and the development and introduction of disruptive technologies, companies

need to have flexible and planned business practices to facilitate change to adapt to the

market environment. Aligning resources and employees to a company’s goals and

objectives is imperative. Whilst machines can easily adapt to a change in command, the

human composition does not always provide for such an easy transition. Dealing with

the human psyche, entrenched values, fears, anxieties and insecurities necessitates

careful change management planning. Several critical success factors for organisational

change are discussed further below.

Change to company processes requires dedicated organisational strategic planning.

With the dependency between integrated business units, a change in one area of the

business can severely impact another. Consider the implementation of a new project

management framework in a web development company. Failure to consider the

requirements and dependencies of the production process can sabotage development

time and create project cost blowouts. Involving team members from business units that

will be affected by the change will maximize planning feedback, minimize areas of risk

and improve the chances that team members will be prepared for and accept the change

to the organisational process. Having the foresight to involve important personnel is a

critical success factor for organisational change.


Adopting a long term vision is a critical success factor for managing change. Companies

that commit to the process are more likely to experience a greater acceptance than

those who implement short term or damage control practices. Initiatives take time to

iteratively refine and sometimes processes require an adjustment for best fit. Managing

and committing to this can raise a company’s chance of success.

Building performance metrics to measure the change process

provides a framework for benchmarking the change process.

The evaluation stage of change management scopes and

bounds this requirement. When you know where you are

going you have an immediate point of reference for

determining how close you are to goal realization and can

make the necessary adjustment when slightly off course.

Establishing performance metrics is a critical success factor

for organisational change.

A top down approach is important for widespread company adoption. If management set

the mandate and fail to adhere to the initial objectives, company personnel can start to

assume that goals and objectives are no longer important. It is, therefore, imperative that

all levels of management champion the cause and remain accountable.

Committing to employee training and development is a critical success factor for

organisational change. When technology processes change or new initiatives are

adopted, empowering the workforce, overcoming fear or failure and facilitating change is

improved by educating the affected personnel. This is imperative for change

management strategic planning success.

An awareness of critical success factors for organisational change better prepares a

company for the strategic planning and implementation of change. The above guidelines

are an example of proven considerations that need to be factored into the change

management framework.

Further to the above, while the executive vision and support, clearly communicated, is

important, it is not enough. More fundamental approaches to planning and analysis need

to occur to encourage effective change management.


http://humanresources.about.com/od/changemanagement/a/change_lessons.htm

Assess the readiness of your organisation to participate in the change. Instruments

are available to help you assess readiness, as well as qualitative information from

internal or external staff and consultants. Answer questions such as these: What is

the level of trust within your organisation? Do people feel generally positive about

their work environment? Do you have a history of open communication? Do you

share financial information?

These factors have a tremendous impact on people’s acceptance of and willingness

to change. If you can start building this positive and supportive environment prior to

the change, you have a great head start on the change implementation.

Turn the change vision into an overall plan and timeline, and plan to practice

forgiveness when the timeline encounters barriers. Solicit input to the plan from

people who “own” or work on the processes that are changing.

Gather information about and determine ways to communicate the reasons for the

changes. These may include the changing economic environment, customer needs

and expectations, vendor capabilities, government regulations, population

demographics, financial considerations, resource availability and company direction.

Assess each potential impact to organisation processes, systems, customers and

staff. Assess the risks and have a specific improvement or mitigation plan developed

for each risk.

Plan the communication of the change. People have to understand the context, the

reasons for the change, the plan and the organisation’s clear expectations for their

changed roles and responsibilities. Nothing communicates expectations better than

improved measurements and rewards and recognition.

Determine the WIIFM (what’s in it for me) of the change for each individual in your

organisation. Work on how the change will affect each individual directly, and how to

make the change fit his or her needs as well as those of the organisation.

Some stakeholders might find the development of a theoretical underpinning for the

change effective in helping individuals understand the need for change.

Be honest and worthy of trust. Treat people with the same respect you expect from

them.


In building support for effective change management provide as much information as

possible, to as many employees as possible, about the business. Share financial

information, customer feedback, employee satisfaction survey results, industry

projections and challenges, and data from processes you measure. Assuming

decisions about needed change are made based on relevant data, an informed

workforce will understand and agree with the need for change. (They may not agree

on the how and / or what, but you are miles ahead if you have agreement on the why

and the whether.)

Create urgency around the need to change. Project for your workforce what will

happen if you don’t make the needed changes. Communicate this information

honestly and use data whenever it is available. You do have compelling reasons for

making the changes? Right? Spend extra time and energy working with your front

line supervisory staff and line managers to ensure that they understand, can

communicate about, and support the changes. Their action and communication are

critical in molding the opinion of the rest of your workforce.

Align all organisational systems to support needed changes. These include the

performance management system, rewards and recognition, disciplinary

approaches, compensation, promotions, and hiring. A consistency across all Human

Resources systems will support faster change. Align the informal structures and


http://humanresources.about.com/od/performancemanagement/a/quick_perf.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/employeesurvey1/index.htm

networks in your organisation with the desired changes. If you can tap into the

informal communication and political network, you will increase change commitment.

(As an example, eat lunch in the lunchroom and discuss the changes informally.

Spend extra time communicating the positive aspects of the change to people you

know are “key communicators” in your organisation.)

1.7 Planned vs. Reactive Change

“The main dangers in this life are the people who want to change everything or

nothing” - Lady Nancy Astor

Planned Change: This occurs when a change results from a deliberate decision to alter

the organisation. A company may wish to move from one structure to another and, thus,

engage in a carefully constructed or orchestrated approach to alter the structure or

functions of the organisation. Planned change has three facets:

• Incremental change: This is change of a relatively small scope, such as making a

small modification in a work procedure. It is change involving minor improvements.

• Strategic change: This is change of a larger scale, such as the restructuring of an

organisation. In strategic change, the organisation moves from an old state to a

known new state during a controlled period of time. Strategic change usually involves

a series of transitional steps.

• Transformational change: This is the most massive scope of change. With this

change, the organisation moves to a radically different, and, at times, unknown future

state. In this change process, the organisation’s mission, culture, goals, structure,

and leadership may all change dramatically.

Unplanned Change: Alterations may occur as a result of imposed conditions. Such

change may be unforeseen. Unplanned changes may be environmental, for instance,

natural disasters. Government regulations and economic conditions may lead to abrupt

and unexpected changes for organisations. Whether forced or planned, but especially in

the case of the latter, change needs to be managed, especially because it can be either

disruptive or constructive.


Section 2: Implementing Change

2.1 Guiding Principles of Change Management

Guiding principles to consider and build into your change management plans are:

1. At all times involve and agree support from people within the system (system =

environment, processes, culture, relationships, behaviours, etc., whether personal or

organisational).

2. Understand where you / the organisation are at the moment.

3. Understand where you want to be, when, why, and what the measures will be for

having got there.

4. Plan development towards No.3 above in appropriate achievable measurable stages.

5. Communicate, involve, enable and facilitate involvement from people, as early and

openly and as fully as is possible.

6. When people are confronted with the need or opportunity to change, especially when

it’s 'enforced', as they see it, by the organisation, they can become emotional. So

can the managers who try to manage the change. Diffusing the emotional feelings,

taking a step back, encouraging objectivity, are important to enabling sensible and

constructive dialogue. To this end, managers and trainers can find it helpful to use

analogies to assist themselves and other staff to look at change in a more detached

way.

7. Just as the state of 'unconscious incompetence', needs to be developed into

'conscious competence' to provide a basis for training, so a person's subjective

emotion needs to be developed into objectivity before beginning to help them handle

change. None of us are immune from subjectivity, ignorance or denial.

2.2 Change Management Models

There are many different models on change management. Each attempts to describe

the process through which organisations successfully alter their business practices, their

organisational structure, or their organisational climate. A summary of the most popular and


http://www.businessballs.com/consciouscompetencelearningmodel.htm

practical models are included in this section for you as a reference. These models of change

include:

Model / Approach Summary

Lewin's three-step

model

Old activities must be unfrozen, a new concept introduced, then

new activities must be frozen

Bullock and Batten's

planned changeExploration, planning, action, and integration

Kotter's eight steps

Establish a sense of urgency, form a powerful guiding coalition,

create a vision, communicate the vision, empower others to act

on the vision, plan for and create short-term wins, consolidate

improvements and produce still more change, institutionalize new

approaches

Beckhard and Harris's

change formula

C = [ABD] > X, Where C = change, A = level of dissatisfaction

with the status quo, B = Desirability of the proposed change or

end state, D = practicality of the change, and X = cost of

changing

Nadler and Tushman's

congruence model

Organisation is a system that draws inputs from internal and

external sources and transforms them into outputs through four

components: the work itself, the people, the informal

organisation, and the formal organisation

Bridges's managing

the transition

Transition, which differs from change, consists of three phases:

ending, neutral zone, and new beginning

Carnall's change

management model

Change depends on level of management skills in managing

transitions effectively, dealing with organisational cultures, and

managing organisational politics

Senge et al.'s

systematic model

Start small; grow steadily; don't plan everything; expect

challenges

Stacey and Shaw's

complex responsive

process

Change emerges naturally from communication and conflict; and

managers are a part of the whole environment


Lewin's Three-step Model for Change

In the late 1940s social psychologist Kurt Lewin developed a three-step model for

implementing change based on the concept of force field analysis. Force field analysis

addresses the driving and resisting forces in a change situation. Driving forces must

outweigh resisting forces in a situation if change is to occur. Thus, managers must be

willing to advocate change strongly in order to overcome resistance from employees.

There are three steps in Lewin's model. The first step is "unfreezing," which involves

dismantling those things that support or maintain the previous behavior. In an

organisation, these elements of the old could be the compensation system or the

approach to performance management. In the second step, the organisation "presents a

new alternative." This means introducing a clear and appealing option for a new pattern

of behavior. The final step in this model is "freezing" which requires that changed

behavior be reinforced both formally and informally in the organisation. It is in this step

that managers can have a great amount of influence through their use of positive

reinforcement.

Lewin's model does not explicitly state the notion that simply introducing change will

result in the change being adopted or being sustained over the long run. If an attempt to

create change in the organisation is unsuccessful, it means that there is a problem in

one of the three steps in the model.


Bullock and Batten's Phases of Planned Change

R.J. Bullock and D. Batten derived their ideas from project management and they

recommend using exploration, planning, action, and integration for planned change.

Exploration occurs when managers confirm the need for change and secure resources

needed for it. These resources may be physical or they may be mental, such as

managers' expertise. The next step, planning, occurs when key decision makers and

experts create a change plan that they then review and approve. Next, action occurs

with enactment of the plan. There should be opportunities for feedback during the action

phase. Finally, integration begins when all actions in the change plan have taken place.

Integration occurs when the changes have been aligned with the organisation and there

is some degree of formalization, such as through policies and procedures in the

organisation.


Kotter's Eight Steps

John P. Kotter identified eight steps every organisation must follow in order to reap long-

term benefits from organisational change: establish a sense of urgency; form a powerful

guiding coalition; create a vision and strategy; communicate the vision; empower others

to act on the vision; generate short-term wins; consolidate improvements and produce

still more change; and institutionalise the new approach (i.e., make it a part of the

organisational culture).

The first step, establishing a sense of urgency, involves selling the need for change to

managers and employees. Kotter recommends creating a "felt-need" for change in

others. The second step is for managers to create a powerful group of people who can

work together to enact change. Their power will be a driving force as it encourages

others to adopt change. Third, the organisation must have a vision that will guide the

entirety of the change effort, and this vision must be communicated repeatedly (step

four) — as much as ten times or as often as one would expect to.

Steps five through eight occur after the sense of urgency is created and these steps are

easier to delegate or decentralize. In step five, others in the organisation are empowered

to act on the vision. Managers should assist in this process by eliminating barriers such

as old systems or structures. Step six asks managers to plan for and to create short-

term wins. This means that small improvements should be recognized and celebrated

publicly. In step seven, the current improvements are built upon with new projects and

resources. Finally, in step eight, the new approaches should be institutionalized; that is,

they should become a routine path to organisational success.


Beckhard and Harris's Change Formula

The change formula is a mathematical representation of the change process (see Exhibit

1). The basic notion is that, for change to occur, the costs of change ( X ) must be

outweighed by dissatisfaction with the status quo ( A ), the desirability of the proposed

change ( B ), and the practicality of the change ( D ). There will be resistance to change

if people are not dissatisfied with the current state of the organisation ( A ), or if the

changes are not seen as an improvement ( B ), if the change cannot be done in a

feasible way ( D ), or the cost is far too high ( X ).

C = [ABD] > X

This formula can also be conceptualized as ( A × B × D ) > X. The multiplicative nature

of this formula indicates that if any variable is zero or near zero, resistance to change will

not be overcome. In other words, the variables of A, B, and D do not compensate for one

another, and when one is very low, the cost of change is likely to be too high.

Nadler and Tushman's Congruence Model

Nadler and Tushman's model presents the dynamics of what occurs in an organisation

when we try to change it. The foundation of this model is that of the organisation as an

open system, in which organisational subsystems are influenced by the external

environment. The organisational system draws inputs from internal and external sources

– such as the organisation's own strategy, its resources, and its environment – and

transforms them into outputs, such as behavior and performance. This transformation

from inputs to outputs occurs through four organisational elements: the work, the people,

and the formal and informal organisation. The work involves the daily activities carried

out by individuals in the organisation. The skills and capabilities of the people involved in

the organisation are critical. The formal organisation is characterized by its structure, its

standard procedures, and its policies. The informal organisation encompasses things

such as norms, values, and political behavior.

In this model, effective change occurs when all four components (work, people, formal,

and informal organisation) are managed, because they are all interrelated. A change in

the work procedures themselves may not be effective if the people do not have the

capabilities to engage in the new practices. A change to the formal organisation may not

be effective if the beliefs and values of people (i.e., the informal organisation) do not


support it. If there is a lack of congruence among these four elements, then there is

resistance to change. Furthermore, there may be control issues in which there is

confusion over who regulates the new structures and processes. Finally, power

problems may occur as managers and employees feel threatened that their current

power may be removed by the change.

William Bridges's Managing the Transition.

William Bridges distinguished planned change from transition. He believes that transition

is more complex because it requires abandoning old practices and adopting new

behaviors or ways of thinking, whereas planned change is about changing physical

locations or organisational structures. Bridges believes that transition often lags behind

planned change because it is more complex and more difficult to achieve. Because it is

psychological, it is harder to manage.

Bridges describes three phases of transition: ending, neutral zone, and new beginning.

Ending is similar to Lewin's concept of unfreezing in that you must end a current

situation before you can begin something new. So, in this phase, old structures,

practices, and behaviors must be stopped. Ideally, this ending can be commemorated or

marked in some way. In the second phase, the neutral zone, the old practices have been

stopped, but new ones have not yet been adopted. In this phase, many employees will

feel disoriented and anxious; nevertheless, it may be a time in which creativity rises.

Finally, new beginnings are not planned and predicted, but must evolve as

organisational members psychologically adjust to transition. Managers can encourage,

support, and reinforce these new beginnings. Bridges recommends that four key

elements be communicated to people during a new beginning: the purpose behind the

change; a picture of how the organisation will be after the change; a step-by-step plan to

get to that stage; and the part they can play in that outcome.

Carnall's Change Management Model

Carnall's view of change is focused on managers and the skills they can use to manage

change. Carnall describes three skills that must be present at all levels of management:

(1) managing transitions effectively; (2) dealing with organisational cultures; and (3)

managing organisational politics. Managing transitions involves helping employees learn

as they change and supporting a culture of openness and risk-taking. Managing

organisational cultures involves creating a "more adaptable culture." This is an


organisational culture in which people are more open, there is greater information flow,

and perhaps greater autonomy. Finally, to manage organisational politics, the manager

should recognize and understand different organisational groups and their political

agendas. The manager should be able to build coalitions and control the agenda through

his or her political skill.

Senge's Systemic Model

Senge and colleagues encourage managers to think like biologists when approaching

organisational change. That is, to better understand how organisations react to change,

one should view them as systems bound by many interrelated actions that may affect

each other over a long period of time. To enact change, Senge et. al., recommend that

managers start small, grow steadily, do not plan the whole thing, and expect challenges.

Furthermore, Senge et. al., offer a number of issues related to the challenges of first

initiating change, then sustaining that change, and finally redesigning and rethinking

change.

Other alternative models of change include:

ADKAR

The first step in managing any type of organisational change is understanding how to

manage change with a single individual. Prosci's model of individual change is called

ADKAR – an acronym for Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability and Reinforcement. In

essence, to make a change successfully an individual needs:

Awareness of the need for change.

Desire to participate and support the change.

Knowledge on how to change.

Ability to implement required skills and behaviors.

Reinforcement to sustain the change.

ADKAR describes successful change at the individual level. When an organisation

undertakes an initiative, that change only happens when the employees who have to do

their jobs differently can say with confidence, "I have the Awareness, Desire,

Knowledge, Ability and Reinforcement to make this change happen."


Because it outlines the goals or outcomes of successful change, ADKAR is an effective

tool for:

Planning change management activities.

Diagnosing gaps.

Developing corrective actions.

Supporting managers and supervisors.

The 3-phase process gives structure to the steps project teams should take. Prosci's

organisational change management process was first introduced in 2002 after the third

change management benchmarking study was conducted. Prosci felt that with the third

study, there was a strong enough research basis for the process below. This process is

built in steps that a project team can complete for a particular change or initiative they

are supporting. The methodology includes research-based assessments and templates

that are available in the online Change Management Pilot or hardcopy Change

Management Toolkit, or by attending one of Prosci's 3-day certification programs.

Phase 1 - Preparing for Change

The first phase in Prosci's methodology is aimed at getting ready. It answers the

question: "how much change management is needed for this specific project?" The first

phase provides the situational awareness that is critical for effective change

management.

Outputs of Phase 1:

Change characteristics profile.

Organisational attributes profile.

Change management strategy.

Change management team structure.

Sponsor assessment, structure and roles.


http://www.change-management.com/change-management-training.htm

http://www.change-management.com/change-management-toolkit.htm

http://www.change-management.com/change-management-toolkit.htm

http://www.change-management.com/cm-pilot.htm

Phase 2 - Managing Change

The second phase of Prosci's process is focused on creating the plans that are

integrated into the project activities - what people typically think of when they talk about

change management. Based on Prosci's research, there are five plans that should be

created to help individuals move through the ADKAR Model.

Outputs of Phase 2:

Communication plan.

Sponsor roadmap.

Training plan.

Coaching plan.

Resistance management plan.


Phase 3 - Reinforcing Change

Equally critical but most often overlooked, the third phase of Prosci's process helps

project teams create specific action plans for ensuring that the change is sustained. In

this phase, project teams develop measures and mechanisms to see if the change has

taken hold, to the see if employees are actually doing their jobs the new way and to

celebrate success.

Outputs of Phase 3:

Reinforcement mechanisms.

Compliance audit reports.

Corrective action plans.

Individual and group recognition approaches.

Success celebrations.

After action review.


The image below shows the connection between the change management tools

developed in the organisational change management process and the phases of

individual change described by the ADKAR model. This picture is the essence of

effective change management and is the core of Prosci's change management

methodology.

.

Change Management Matrix Approach:

The four key factors for success when implementing change within an organisation are:

Pressure for change – demonstrated senior management commitment is essential.

A clear, shared vision – you must take everyone with you. This is a shared agenda

that benefits the whole organisation.


Capacity for change – you need to provide the resources: time and finance.

Action – and performance – “plan, do, check, act” (PDCA) – and keep

communication channels open.

Factor 1. Pressure for Change (The Top Down Approach)

Firstly there must, of course, be pressure for change – a driving force. The need for

change has been identified, the decision to proceed has been taken, and this now needs

to be communicated throughout the organisation.

Pressure for change could be senior management commitment from the outset, but it

may have come from customers or clients in a supply chain. It could come from a

regulatory regime, such as Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), the

implementation of an Environmental Management System or, and this can often be the

most effective source, pressure from the workforce itself.

Who wants to work for a company or an organisation that has developed a notorious

reputation for polluting the environment or exploiting its suppliers? It is widely accepted

that when people take pride in the organisation they work for, they perform better and

will more readily put themselves out to help achieve corporate goals.

For success, however, regardless of where the original pressure came from, senior

management commitment and drive for change is essential if momentum is to be

maintained for effective implementation.

The rest of the organisation will need to be convinced of the need and the case for

change - this is dealt with in more detail in Factor 2 (A clear shared vision). Only this can

happen to good effect if senior management, including the Chairman and Chief

Executive, are collectively behind the changes sought.

Senior management must be seen to be fully supportive by what they do and say - both

privately and publicly. If, however, senior management “talks the talk” by failing to back

up their statements with action and a continuous commitment, progress can soon stall.

Other conflicting or new priorities emerge and the momentum can be lost if senior

management fail to remain fully supportive of the project.

So, get senior management signed up to the change. And communicate this to all staff –

giving them the opportunity to feed in their contributions and feel that they have joint

ownership of the change being implemented.


Forward-thinking companies are already signed up to becoming more sustainable

through resource efficiency, using cleaner technologies, minimising waste and

embracing the principles of producer responsibility. But being more sustainable in its

broadest sense also means attending to social responsibilities as a good employer by,

for example, encouraging fairness at work; helping staff to develop their skills;

introducing green transport plans; being a ‘good neighbour’ that is responsive to the

local community; and as an ethical trader. That is the positive message that needs to be

communicated throughout the organisation.

An environmental policy (whether new or improved) can be the signal to staff that things

are changing, and that they have a role to play in making this happen. It’s their agenda

too. It’s in their interests and in the interests of the organisation that the changes are

made. This is where a clear, shared vision (Factor 2) is essential.

Factor 2: A clear, Shared Vision

“Businesses are nothing more or less than organisations of people trying to get to a

jointly defined future” – Professor Howard H Stevenson, Harvard Business School

“As a manager the important thing is not what happens when you are there, but what

happens when you are not there” - Ken Blanchard

For change to be effective, it needs to be implemented at all levels; embedded in the

culture of the organisation. To keep colleagues with you and not against you they need

to be motivated and you need to understand what motivates them. You should never

forget that change is a major cause of stress amongst the workforce. Staff will usually

respond well to challenges (that they feel they can meet!); it’s fear of the unknown that

raises stress levels. Getting staff motivated to support the changes that are to be

implemented is therefore crucial for success.

Staff, their managers and senior managers are all motivated by similar things. They do

not, however, necessarily place them in the same order of importance. These

‘motivators’ include pride, happiness, responsibility, recognition, security, success, and,

of course, money. The trick in successfully managing change and getting the


commitment and support from staff is to provide these ‘motivators’ for your staff – or at

least as many of them as possible. Here are some tips, questions and ideas to help you:

Pride

“Follow where your enthusiasm takes you”

When was the last time you [or senior management] told or showed your staff how proud

you are of what they have achieved? The performance of your staff can drop

significantly if they feel unappreciated or taken for granted. Staff that take pride and

some level of enjoyment in their work and working environment are much more likely to

perform well and provide new ideas for improving the organisation’s own well being.

Happiness

“A happy team is an effective team”

A culture where laughter is permitted and encouraged can make all the difference in

helping everyone get through the day. A caring approach to your staff can reap many

benefits; because if they know their employer cares about them as individuals then they

will be more likely to care about the employer’s interests. Taking the approach of

‘treating others as we would wish to be treated ourselves’ is the ‘golden rule’ for

strengthening and improving relationships between everyone at all levels in the

organisation.

Responsibility

“It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit" –

Harry Truman

Giving people more responsibility is a demonstration of trust. If people feel they are

trusted they usually respond by taking greater care and pride in their work. Is

management prepared to delegate responsibility and provide the back-up? Will

management then take responsibility when things go wrong? – Or does it have a blame

culture?

Success

“Success in your life is not a single achievement. It’s all that you do with others and for

others”


We all have slightly different views on what constitutes success. But there can often be

common factors such as market profile, corporate reputation and product quality. A

useful exercise here is, following a presentation on why change is being undertaken, to

ask staff, individually or in small focus groups, what they have as a vision for the

company / organisation and also for themselves as individuals. Good questions to get

things going are:

(i) What or where are you now?

(ii) What or where would you like to be?

(Ask teams to apply these questions to the company as well as themselves)

A facilitated discussion can tease out where ideas overlap and demonstrate where

common ground exists and can be strengthened.

Recognition

When the leader’s work is done, the people say “We did it ourselves” – Lau Tzu

Are your staff valued and made to feel part of the organisation’s success? Even when

times are hard? When was the last time you took time out to say ‘thank you’ to staff at all

levels of the organisation for their individual contributions? To ignore this important

motivator would be a serious error; and could result in losing the support you need when

implementing change.

An effective approach employers can take is to treat its employees as it’s most important

and valued customers. The employer is providing employment activity and wages; the

employees purchase these with their effort. The spin-off is that the external customers

benefit from a more highly motivated company to do business with.


Security

“You do not lead people by hitting them over the head – that’s assault, not leadership” -

Eisenhower

Whenever change is being implemented the fear factor can set in. This can be the fear

of change itself and its consequences such as the possible loss of job security or loss of

responsibility or control. Continuous, honest and open communication is essential here.

Change can take people out of their ‘comfort zone’ and raise their stress levels. The

challenge is to demonstrate that the new ‘zone’ is even more comfortable and secure –

or at least it will be once the initial short-term discomfort of implementing change has

been overcome.

Money

“I am not interested in money. I just want to be wonderful”

- Marilyn Monroe

Money is of course an important motivator. Underpaid staff feel under-valued and are

less likely to respond positively to change – especially if it means more effort for little or

no increase in either pay or recognition – or both! Many, especially those with

captivating outside interests, ‘work to live rather than live to work’, but we need to

recognise that most full-time employees spend more of their waking hours at work than

they spend on pursuing leisure interests or with their families. This means that providing

the other six motivators are equally as important as paying a fair wage for a fair job of

work done.

If your company is already highly profitable, staff may not have a strong inclination to

reduce operating or production costs by, for example, switching off equipment when not

in use – especially if the shareholders rather than their own pay packets benefit from

cost-saving measures. However, informing staff of the environmental impacts of the

organisation (for example carbon dioxide emissions or waste volumes going to landfill)

and how staff have an important role in reducing these, can be an effective motivator –

especially as environmental awareness continues to increase amongst the general

population. The positive feedback to staff of reductions in harmful environmental impacts

can increase this motivation (“Haven’t we done well, can we keep this up and do

better?”).


Staff suggestion schemes, with financial rewards for employees, need to be handled

sensitively. Make sure you do deliver the rewards that you promise. Better still, let a

percentage of costs savings (subject to a capped limit perhaps) go towards supporting a

local charitable cause that has been chosen by staff. This can motivate those who are

not unduly concerned with environmental issues, but who may have local community

interests.

Finally, management and staff alike need to remember that, in the words of Henry Ford,

“It is not the employer who pays wages; he only handles the money. It is the product

that pays wages”.

Factor 3. Capacity for Change (Resources)

“More business is lost every year through neglect than through any other cause” -

Jim Cathcart

Capacity here means resources and these are staff time and, where appropriate, money.

To implement change you need to identify the resources that will be required before you

proceed and make sure these are provided. Often, the cost benefits from implementing

energy efficiency measures and waste minimisation programmes can provide the

financial resources for an ongoing programme of improvement.

It is usually the organisation’s own employees that have the information, intuition, ideas

and instincts necessary for implementing change effectively. When given the capability

and the opportunity to participate in improvement programmes, it is employees who

often can find the greatest cost savings and efficiency improvements.

Factor 4. Action

“We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit” - Aristotle

Having got the other three factors in place (pressure, a clear shared vision and capacity)

you now have to implement the planned change.

“Energy is equal to desire and purpose” - Sheryl Adams


Keeping up momentum is what matters here and implementing the PLAN – DO -

CHECK – ACT management methodology is essential to maintaining the effectiveness

and appropriateness of the change. Good monitoring and analysis of the resulting data

is essential. Make sure you continue to keep employees informed of progress.

The Change Management Matrix


Other interesting approaches to managing change

Appreciative Inquiry, a collaborative approach to organisational change, is partly

based on the assumption that change in a system is instantaneous ('Change at the

Speed of Imagination').

Scenario Planning provides a platform for doing so by asking management and

employees to consider different future market possibilities in which their

organisations might find themselves.

"Organise with Chaos", by Robin Rowley and Dr. Joseph Roevens. Essentially,

change-efficiency can improve greatly when management realise that "People do not

resist their own ideas". Open, information-sharing teams and networks, knock power

hierarchies flat when it comes to rapid innovation and change. The authors describe

Change as a creative cyclical process where some events can be managed, but

others must be deliberately “under” managed and left alone to self-organize, ripen,

and eventually improve the business naturally. By looking at how things change in

Nature, the authors observed that major changes in the environment can precipitate

a ubiquitous process of transformation. Essentially the system moves away from

efficient Control and refinement and disintegrates into creative Chaos. As all the

various dormant mutations and experiments begin to assert themselves in the

evolutionary soup, many fail, but a few of them “fit” successfully and may reproduce.

Thus, they move through a transformational phase, back into a higher level type of

Control. Watching the system as a whole, it appears to move through four distinct

cyclical phases, which run like this: ENHANCE / PERTURB / ATTRACT / EXCITE.

In practice, Management can ENHANCE (a response to events shifting in the

environment, or the "change field"). PERTURB (self-organising perturbations occur

spontaneously; old ways disintegrate, etc.). Under-management and executive

silence reigns here if the natural process is not to be prematurely collapsed. The

system then moves into a creative, “free for all” state of Chaos. ATTRACT

(eventually new people, groups, ideas and / or actions emerge, cluster and maybe

resonate. EXCITE (time, energy, resources and management can now be applied to

enable the new systems to synergise and develop). Profits occur as higher order

control and efficiency rule temporarily. Then, depending on the stabilty of the

environment, or market competition, it all starts over again as a continuous cycle of

change.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appreciative_Inquiry

Theory U of Otto Scharmer who describes a process in which change strategies are

based on the emerging future rather than on lessons from the past.

The Solution focused brief therapy approach to change, developed to assist

individuals, is equally useful for organisations.

The Closework theory of intervention says change is driven by the champions, be

they internal project teams or consultants, working alongside the delivery team,

individuals and management in the places where the work gets done. Champions

should get involved rather than instruct and bring practical and implementable ideas.

2.3 Stakeholder Involvement in the Change Process

Everybody talks about change and Change Management. Few people actually know

what it means in practice. And, yes, we know that 90% of Change Management is good

leadership, transparency, a little bit of good luck and a strong belief in the higher Gods of

management.

On the other side, most large organisations run so many change projects at the same

time, that change fatigue predominates the attitude of their staff: new companywide

software, new training programs, new leadership guidelines, merger and acquisitions,

implementation of matrix organisation, new customer relation management programs,

etc. – all this happens, if not in parallel, then at least in a short subsequence.

Seeing the reality of many companies, what often surprises (and fascinates) us is the

fact that they still produce and sell (and often very successfully)! So, if organisations

want to change, what is the best route? A central question for a manager who is about to

start a new project is the question of stakeholder involvement. In few cases, those who

want to initiate a change process ask themselves, whether top down or bottom up is the

right direction to drive the change. The history of failures shows that in many cases

those who are affected by the change are not consulted before the start of a project.

A good example is Nestlés ERP story. Read more at:

http://www.cio.com/archive/051502/nestle.html. Whoever thought that companywide

projects for implementation of a new software has something to do with Change

Management – here is the proof!


http://www.cio.com/archive/051502/nestle.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closework

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solution_focused_brief_therapy

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otto_Scharmer&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theory_U&action=edit&redlink=1

"Nestlé learned the hard way that an enterprise wide rollout involves much more than

simply installing software.” When you move to SAP (Systems Applications and

Products), you are changing the way people work,' Jeri Dunn, CIO of Nestle, USA, says.

“You are challenging their principles, their beliefs and the way they have done things for

many, many years.”

For a systems thinker, there is no alternative than involving the whole system in the

change. Because of the auto-poetic forces of a complex system, it will always try to

rearrange internally to avoid change. Because change is firstly a threat, and only

secondly an opportunity.

However, the reality of many organisations is different. Involving many stakeholders in a

change process does not only need a lot of resources. It also needs a new approach to

leadership that identifies more with process facilitation than with process control. Not all

companies qualify for that call.

Therefore, although we advocate whole systems change, we know that not all

organisations are ready to go along that path. Should we leave those alone? Should we

talk them into organisation of large stakeholder conventions in which the vision and the

strategy of the company is delivered from bottom up – even if they are not ready? The

answer is a clear NO. As change practitioners, we need to see the reality of the

organisation, and make appropriate suggestions for a change strategy. This could be

advice to a strong and charismatic boss of a medium size company to implement her

dreams against all odds. Or it could be helping the well established international

organisation promoting new tools and techniques for planning. Or, it could be a large

institutional learning process involving the "Whole System". The following matrix is

based on a design Peter Senge has provided in his famous Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. It

shows the different steps of involvement and participation in change processes:

"Telling" means that decisions about the change process are taken on the highest

managerial level. Stakeholders / employees have only the choice of accepting the top-

down plan or to leave the system. Implementing an entire change process top-down

leads to frustration and refusal of co-operation.

"Selling" means that change plans are designed at top-level and stakeholders are

invited to join in the change is advocated. The limitation of selling lays in the fact that the


top management wants to hear a "yes", and the staff wants to hear that they will keep

their jobs. So, most will give a compliant "yes", which is not a safe base for commitment.

"Testing", whilst still a top-down approach, lays the vision out for inspection by the

stakeholders and asks for their comments. The management intends to find out whether

stakeholders support the change process, and opens up for proposals. Testing can be

done on a limited scale ("piloting") perhaps better to expand, to differentiate between

representation and piloting, but could also concern the whole system. The vision

remains as is, but the way to reach the vision is subject to negotiations between the

different stakeholder groups.

"Consulting" is the preferred mechanism for a management that recognises that it can

not possibly have all the answers. Consulting the stakeholders about the change,

strengthens the vision of change. In recent time, many tools have been developed to

allow a large number of stakeholders to participate in the planning process. However,

such a process takes time and requires commitment at the top-level to correct initial

decisions.

"Co-creating" means developing a vision jointly with stakeholders from the very

beginning. It secures the highest degree of ownership.

Have a look at a figure that shows tools that are related to the five different steps, and

the required degree and type of leadership.


Ralph Stacey's Agreement and Certainty Matrix

In the last ten years, complexity science had a strong impact on the theory and practice

of change facilitation. Tools like Open Space Technology, Appreciative Inquiry and

others are based on the assumption that highly complex social systems like

organisations follow certain generic principles and resemble other systems such as the

body, colonies of ants, swarms of fish or birds, etc. Also, cybernetic models have been

applied, for example for the description of systems archetypes by Peter Senge.

Searching for a model that gives a simple road map for dealing with complexity, the

model of Ralph Stacey is most useful.

As it can be seen in the diagram below, Stacey has proposed a matrix that introduces

two dimensions with regards to management of organisations: Certainty and Agreement:

Certainty depends on the quality of the information base that facilitates individual and

joint decisions in organisations. Rational management has tried hard to increase

uncertainty by introducing tools like fishbone analysis, the Boston Matrix, customer

research, etc. And, in fact there are many day-to-day decisions in management, where

analytical decision making is highly successful. There are, however, many situations in

which decisions are made on assumptions. Depending on the number of stakeholders

involved, the projected time frame, the susceptibility of the project to external influence

factors, etc., projects might become very complex and it becomes impossible to

realistically predict outcomes.

Modern social systems such as organisations are mainly self-organised on the base of

negotiation processes. The degree of agreement among the people directly involved on

what should be done ("the truth") with respect to the implementation methodology of a

project is an important factor determining success.

Many simple business processes are situated at a level in which it is certain what needs

to be done and people involved agree on that. Here, traditional management

approaches, e.g. management by objectives apply and work well. However, leaders

should always question themselves, "How do we know that we know?", "Have we

assessed all the critical variables?" and, "What have we done to assure that people in

our organisation share a common perspective?" Often, managers are blinded by their

own vision. A tool to assess different perspectives is a participatory risk analysis.


http://www.change-management-toolbook.com/mod/glossary/showentry.php?courseid=1&concept=Change+Facilitation

Very often, strategic analyses show a strategy that is most likely to lead to a better

business performance. What has to be done, and what will be the outcome, is quite

obvious to analysts. However, members of the organisation might not agree or, for any

reason, show resistance to the planned changes. Take, for example, the implementation

of company-wide software platforms that facilitates management of business processes.

There are hundreds of examples where such projects have faced severe problems

during the implementation phase. A case study how Nestlé has learned this the hard

way can be found at http://www.cio.com/archive/051502/nestle.html.

So, what to do in situations characterized by certainty but disagreement and resistance?

If you can't (or don't want) to fire all that are blocking your plans, there is no other way


http://www.cio.com/archive/051502/nestle.html

than selling your project. This takes time and resources but will save you a lot of money

at the end. Of the modern Change Management approaches, Real Time Strategic

Change (RTSC) is certainly one methodological framework to be applied in such

situations.

The other extreme in which managers find themselves and their organisations is

characterised by a high agreement of stakeholders – what Senge calls "shared vision",

but a high degree of uncertainty. "How will our business sector evolve?", "What new

technologies will be available tomorrow?", "Which political decisions will influence our

future?” etc. are just some key questions that apply. This is the area of scenario design.

Also, the current theories of Otto Scharmer (http://www.ottoscharmer.com/) provide

leverage to navigate through such environments. Also, participatory approaches for

defining strategies apply very well in such situations.

You wouldn't like to be in the manager's hot seat facing a situation in which the future is

highly uncertain and the stakeholders are far beyond any agreement. However, many

political leaders are operating in exactly such an environment. In an organisation you

would do everything to avoid that situation, because it is what complexity scientists call

"The Edge of Chaos". The fall of the Berlin wall, is such a story that illustrates

complexity, where a system that had been stable for 40 years, collapsed in one night of

freedom celebration.

Most contemporary management processes are situated in a field that fluctuates

between the extremes that have been delineated above. Characterised by a medium to

high level of uncertainty and by stakeholders with highly diversified perspectives on what

should be done. Here, laws of complexity science and neurobiology apply to change in

organisations, and change is the norm. In such environments, the main task of

management is to facilitate the co-creation of the organisation's future, to provide room

for self-organisation and to let people decide themselves about their own and their

organisation's issues. I firmly believe that such strategies are the only way to lead out of

the political crisis of the world, and that more and more profit and non-profit

organisations will adapt management tools for co-creation, such as Open Space

Technology, Appreciative Inquiry, World Café, and other tools to come.


http://www.ottoscharmer.com/

2.4 Trends in Change Management

The top ten trends identified in 2009 were:

A recognition of the need for change management

Overall, participants saw a greater understanding of and appreciation for the role of

change management. Organisations and project-focused employees saw change

management as important and as a needed aspect of any change project. Change

management was identified as a key contributor to project success. There was a wider

appreciation of the role change management played in contributing to return on

investment (ROI) and benefit realization of projects; it was viewed as essential. A

number of participants also commented on the growing interest and attention by senior

leaders.

Change management competency building

Viewing change management as an emerging and necessary competency moved up

from number five on the trends list in 2007 to number two in the 2009 study. Participants

indicated more demand for training and knowledge around change management, as well

as more widespread competency building programs. Change management

competencies were becoming evident in senior leadership levels and front-line

management levels.

Dedication of resources for change management

Participants identified the use of dedicated resources focused on change management

as a key trend in their organisation. Project leaders were more likely to appoint change

management resources to support their change initiative, and change management

specialists were being identified and developed within the organisation.

Use of change management tools

The fourth most-cited trend was a greater adoption of change management tools,

processes and methodologies. Participants indicated that change management and its

application was becoming more consistent and formalized in their organisation. The use

of more structured and formal processes was number two in the list of trends in the 2007

study.


Application of change management on projects

Participants commented that change management resources were now sought out by

project teams, rather than looking for projects to support as they had done in the past.

Project teams were bringing change management resources on board earlier in the

project, during the planning phase, and were considering people-side issues earlier.

Several participants indicated that change management had become a requirement and

that no major projects moved forward without change management.

Project management and change management integration

Integration of change management and project management moved down several spots

from the 2007 study in the list of top trends. Participants commented on the partnership,

alignment and involvement in the planning process that was taking place with the project

management and change management functions.

Change saturation

As evidenced by other findings in the study, organisations were increasingly facing a

point of change saturation. The recognition of this condition and an increasing pace of

change were highlighted as emerging trends. One participant noted the “change

avalanche” the organisation was experiencing.

Standard change management approach

More organisations were establishing a standard change management methodology for

the entire enterprise.

Establishment of a change management group

Some organisations were creating and staffing a change management function in the

organisation, sometimes called the Change Management Office (CMO). Advances were

made in staffing this group which centrally supported change management and change

management training efforts. A number of participants indicated they were currently

trying to decide where this group would reside in the organisation.

Management of the portfolio of change

Several participants indicated that their organisations were making progress in

understanding the people impact across the multiple projects underway. Participants


mentioned steps including managing the portfolio of change, tracking projects, mapping

future changes and prioritizing projects based on the change load.

Trends in Terms of Change Management Methodologies: Principle-based Real Time Strategic Change

Real time: This principle challenges people to think and act as if the future were

now.

Preferred future: This principle reminds people to pay attention to bringing the best

of the past and present with them while at the same time they build the future they

desire.

Creating community: This principle encourages people to join together as strong

individuals while at the same time becoming a strong community, and vice versa. A

key question related to this principle is: "What kind of community do we want and

need to be?"

Common understanding: This principle ensures that informed decisions are made

through inviting diverse viewpoints while at the same time establishing a larger

collective organisational intelligence.

Reality is a key driver: This principle guides decisions and actions through people

focusing in on specific issues and opportunities that provide significant leverage for

change. They simultaneously scan for relevant information amidst the complex,

wide-ranging, and often messy realities of change.

Empowerment / Inclusion: This principle focuses on empowering individuals and teams through inclusion and delegation while clearly defining where power will

be retained where it currently resides.


http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossarye/a/empowerment_def.htm

2.5 Managing Change in the Sector

As primary agents of transformation within finance and,

increasingly, the company at large, Chief Financial Officers

(CFOs) are expected to demonstrate a high level of expertise in

change management. Just about any initiative, from

implementing a new software package to a restructuring the

department calls on this crucial set of leadership skills. But while

change management has been the subject of much research for decades, there's not a

lot of evidence that corporate leaders are getting any better at it. Consulting firm Bain &

Co. recently studied 100 strategy and performance improvement projects and concluded

that in more than 80 percent of cases, companies failed to establish a true point of

departure for their initiative: They failed to adequately understand the performance

issues that they wanted to tackle.

The basic elements of successful change management are straightforward, but many

leaders omit or ignore them. In a new report, Bain offers a useful framework for driving

change based on the acronym PLOT: plan, lead, operate, and track. Along the way, the

report gives some fascinating insights into failed initiatives as well as massively

successful ones, such as Idris Jala's turnaround of Malaysia Airlines.

Plan. The first stage involves cutting through complexity to identify the primary drivers of

change, defining the current state and the successful end-state, and mapping the

transition from the one to the other. While this may seem like not much more than

common sense, many initiatives end up unraveling precisely because leaders devote

insufficient time and attention to this phase.

They also underestimate the human capital and financial resources they need to get the

job done. Under-investing in the project leads to two problems: it sends a signal that the

initiative may not be that important after all, and it often results in slow progress toward

key goals. The result is a negative cycle that can easily derail the project.

Lead. This is the people phase; it centers around assembling the right team for the job,

setting accountabilities, and communicating the goals. It also encompasses the process

of creating milestones and mobilizing the troops around them. At Malaysia Airlines, for

example, Jala held prolonged think sessions with key managers to identify ways to


achieve interim goals. He then broke the objectives down into specific activities and

assigned responsibility for each one.

Operate. At this point, leaders have to make the difficult choices, including people-

related ones that are necessary to keep the project on track. They may need to overrule

or remove managers who are resistant to change. And they'll certainly need to develop a

system to keep people accountable. For example, Jala achieved that by establishing a

separate P&L statement for every route in the airline's book. And he made sure that

each P&L has a manager responsible for overseeing it.

Track. As the initiative unfolds, leaders need to monitor a small number of key

indicators, reward relentlessly, and celebrate successes. Bain recommends a review of

progress every two weeks to two months. Incentive programs can be linked not only to

personal performance and the company's financial objectives, but also to specific

operational milestones.

Jala's initiative is sharply focused on his company's cash position, and he receives a

daily report showing exactly how much the airline has in its various accounts around the

world. He also gets a P&L statement and details of sales and passenger loads on a daily

basis. It seems to be working. Jala's approach has helped him take Malaysia Airlines

from near-bankruptcy to profitability levels nearly five times original projections for 2007

-- within the space of two years.

Case study example: Australian Finance Change Management Project


Overview: Australian Bank was merging with a Finance and Insurance company. A

significant component of this merger was to create one way to operate across all

customer contact points (branches, call centers, websites, automated teller machines

(ATM’s) etc). Our assignment was to project manage the:

Creation of a Standard Operating Environment (SOE).

Develop and implement a new "front end" for a post-merger banking system.

The system was to be used by 235 bank branches, 450 Call Centre staff and

corporate staff; in total over 2,500 end users.

Our assignment was to manage the project, across entire lifecycle:

Strategy development.

RFP's and vendor selection.

Detailed scope.

Build and test, pilot.

Implementation and review.

Post Go Live support.

Project budget was AUD$25M with a team of 65 (internal and consultants). The project

was completed on time within budget and with full functionality.

2.6 Factors in Selecting a Change Management Strategy

Generally speaking, there is no single change strategy. You can adopt a general or what

is called a "grand strategy" but, for any given initiative, you are best served by some mix

of strategies. Which of the preceding strategies to use in your mix of strategies is a

decision affected by a number of factors. Some of the more important ones follow.

Degree of resistance. Strong resistance argues for a coupling of Power-Coercive

and Environmental-Adaptive strategies. Weak resistance or concurrence argues for

a combination of Empirical-Rational and Normative-Re-educative strategies.

Target population. Large populations argue for a mix of all four strategies,

something for everyone so to speak.


The stakes. High stakes argue for a mix of all four strategies. When the stakes are

high, nothing can be left to chance.

The time frame. Short time frames argue for a Power-Coercive strategy. Longer

time frames argue for a mix of Empirical-Rational, Normative-Re-educative, and

Environmental-Adaptive strategies.

Expertise. Having available adequate expertise at making change argues for some

mix of the strategies outlined above. Not having it available argues for reliance on

the power-coercive strategy.

Dependency. This is a classic double-edged sword. If the organisation is dependent

on its people, management's ability to command or demand is limited. Conversely, if

people are dependent upon the organisation, their ability to oppose or resist is

limited. (Mutual dependency almost always signals a requirement for some level of

negotiation.)

2.7 Change Management Strategies

Change strategy components:

• Clarify what “change” is understood as for the business – link to strategy;

• Clarify role of change management support (change agent) – what can be expected,

included and excluded;

• Clarify process / philosophy to be used to approach and deal with change – include

possible levels, types, outputs, inputs, processes and outcomes.


Strategy Description

Empirical-Rational

People are rational and will follow their self-interest —

once it is revealed to them. Change is based on the

communication of information and the proffering of

incentives.

Normative-Re-educative

People are social beings and will adhere to cultural

norms and values. Change is based on redefining and

reinterpreting existing norms and values, and developing

commitments to new ones.

Power-Coercive

People are basically compliant and will generally do

what they are told or can be made to do. Change is

based on the exercise of authority and the imposition of

sanctions.

Environmental-Adaptive

People oppose loss and disruption but they adapt readily

to new circumstances. Change is based on building a

new organisation and gradually transferring people from

the old one to the new one.

Types of Change Management Strategies Include:

1. Directive strategies. This strategy highlights the manager's right to manage change

and the use of authority to impose change with little or no involvement of other

people. The advantage of the directive approach is that change can be undertaken

quickly. However, the disadvantage of this approach is that it does not take into

consideration the views, or feelings, of those involved in, or affected by, the imposed

change. This approach may lead to valuable information and ideas being missed and

there is usually strong resentment from staff when changes are imposed rather than

discussed and agreed.

2. Expert strategies. This approach sees the management of change as a problem

solving process that needs to be resolved by an 'expert'. This approach is mainly

applied to more technical problems, such as the introduction of a new learner

management system, and will normally be led by a specialist project team or senior

manager. There is likely to be little involvement with those affected by the change.


The advantages to using this strategy is that experts play a major role in the solution

and the solution can be implemented quickly as a small number of 'experts' are

involved. Again, there are some issues in relation to this strategy as those affected

may have different views than those of the expert and may not appreciate the

solution being imposed or the outcomes of the changes made.

3. Negotiating strategies. This approach highlights the willingness on the part of

senior managers to negotiate and bargain in order to effect change. Senior

managers must also accept that adjustments and concessions may need to be made

in order to implement change. This approach acknowledges that those affected by

change have the right to have a say in what changes are made, how they are

implemented and the expected outcomes. The disadvantage to this approach is that

it takes more time to effect change, the outcomes cannot be predicted and the

changes made may not fulfill the total expectations of the managers affecting the

change. The advantage is that individuals will feel involved in the change and be

more supportive of the changes made.

4. Educative strategies. This approach involves changing people's values and beliefs,

'winning hearts and minds', in order for them to fully support the changes being made

and move toward the development of a shared set of organisational values that

individuals are willing, and able to support. A mixture of activities will be used;

persuasion; education; training and selection, led by consultants, specialists and in-

house experts. Again, the disadvantage of this approach is that it takes longer to

implement. The advantage is that individuals within the organisation will have

positive commitment to the changes being made.

5. Participative strategies. This strategy stresses the full involvement of all of those

involved, and affected by, the anticipated changes. Although driven by senior

managers the process will be less management dominated and driven more by

groups or individuals within the organisation. The views of all will be taken into

account before changes are made. Outside consultants and experts can be used to

facilitate the process but they will not make any decisions as to the outcomes. The

main disadvantages of this process are the length of time taken before any changes

are made, it can be more costly due to the number of meetings that take place, the

payment of consultants / experts over a longer time period and the outcomes cannot

be predicted. However, the benefits of this approach are that any changes made are

more likely to be supported due to the involvement of all those affected, the


commitment of individuals and groups within the organisation will increase as those

individuals and groups feel ownership over the changes being implemented. The

organisation and individuals also have the opportunity to learn from this experience

and will know more about the organisation and how it functions, thus increasing their

skills, knowledge and effectiveness to the organisation.

2.8 Creating an Organisational Culture That Embraces Change Management

Changing your organisational culture is the toughest task you will ever take on and can

feel like rolling rocks uphill. Your organisational culture was formed over years of

interaction between the participants in the organisation. Organisational cultures form for

a reason. Perhaps the current organisational culture matches the style and comfort zone

of the company founder. Culture frequently echoes the prevailing management style.

Since managers tend to hire people just like themselves, the established organisational

culture is reinforced by new hires.

Organisational culture grows over time. People are comfortable with the current

organisational culture. For people to consider culture change, usually a significant event

must occur. An event that rocks their world such as flirting with bankruptcy, a significant

loss of sales and customers, or losing a million dollars, might get people's attention.

Even then, to recognize that the organisational culture is the culprit and to take steps to

change it is a tough journey. In no way do I mean to trivialize the difficulty of the

experience of organisational culture change by summarizing it in this article, but here are

my best ideas about culture change that can help your organisation grow and transform.

When people in an organisation realize and recognize that their current organisational

culture needs to transform to support the organisation's success and progress, change

can occur. But change is not pretty and change is not easy. The good news?

Organisational culture change is possible. Culture change requires understanding,

commitment, and tools.


Steps in Organisational Culture Change

There are three major steps involved in changing an organisation's culture.

Before an organisation can change its culture, it must first understand the current

culture, or the way things are now. Do take the time to pursue the activities in this

article before moving on to the next steps.

Once you understand your current organisational culture, your organisation must

then decide what the organisational culture should look like to support success. What

vision does the organisation have for its future and how must the culture change to

support the accomplishment of that vision?

Finally, the individuals in the organisation must decide to change their behavior to

create the desired organisational culture. This is the hardest step in culture change.

Plan the Desired Organisational Culture

The organisation must plan where it wants to go before trying to make any changes in

the organisational culture. With a clear picture of where the organisation is currently, the

organisation can plan where it wants to be next. Mission, vision, and values: to provide a

framework for the assessment and evaluation of the current organisational culture, your

organisation needs to develop a picture of its desired future. What does the organisation

want to create for the future? Mission, vision, and values should be examined for both

the strategic and the value based components of the organisation. Your management

team needs to answer questions such as:

What are the five most important values you would like to see represented in your

organisational culture?

Are these values compatible with your current organisational culture? Do they exist

now? If not, why not? If they are so important, why are you not attaining these

values?

Take a look at the rest of the actions you need to take to change your organisational

culture. What needs to happen to create the culture desired by the organisation? You

cannot change the organisational culture without knowing where your organisation wants

to be or what elements of the current organisational culture need to change. What

cultural elements support the success of your organisation, or not? As an example, your

team decides that you spend too much time agreeing with each other rather than


http://humanresources.about.com/od/organizationalculture/a/culture_change_2.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/organizationalculture/a/culture_change_2.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/cs/strategicplanning1/a/strategicplan.htm

challenging the forecasts and assumptions of fellow team members, that typically have

been incorrect.

In a second example, your key management team members, who must lead the

company, spend most of their time team building with various members of the team on

an individual basis, and to promote individual agendas, to the detriment of the cohesive

functioning of the whole group. Third, your company employees appear to make a

decision, but, in truth, are waiting for the "blessing" from the company owner or founder

to actually move forward with the plan.

In each of these situations, components of the organisational culture will keep your

organisation from moving forward with the success you deserve. You need to

consciously identify the cultural impediments and decide to change them.

However, knowing what the desired organisational culture looks like is not enough.

Organisations must create plans to ensure that the desired organisational culture

becomes a reality.

Change the Organisational Culture

It is more difficult to change the culture of an existing organisation than to create a

culture in a brand new organisation. When an organisational culture is already

established, people must unlearn the old values, assumptions, and behaviors before

they can learn the new ones.

The two most important elements for creating organisational cultural change are

executive support and training.

Executive support: Executives in the organisation must support the cultural change,

and in ways beyond verbal support. They must show behavioral support for the

cultural change. Executives must lead the change by changing their own behaviors. It

is extremely important for executives to consistently support the change.

Training: Culture change depends on behavior change. Members of the organisation

must clearly understand what is expected of them, and must know how to actually do

the new behaviors, once they have been defined. Training can be very useful in both

communicating expectations and teaching new behaviors.


http://humanresources.about.com/cs/managementissues/a/walktalk.htm

Additional Ways to Change the Organisational Culture

Other components important in changing the culture of an organisation are:

Create value and belief statements: use employee focus groups, by department, to

put the mission, vision, and values into words that state their impact on each

employee's job. For one job, the employee stated: "I live the value of quality patient

care by listening attentively whenever a patient speaks." This exercise gives all

employees a common understanding of the desired culture that actually reflects the

actions they must commit to on their jobs.

Practice effective communication: keeping all employees informed about the

organisational culture change process ensures commitment and success. Telling

employees what is expected of them is critical for effective organisational culture

change.

Review organisational structure: changing the physical structure of the company to

align it with the desired organisational culture may be necessary. As an example, in a

small company, four distinct business units competing for product, customers, and

internal support resources, may not support the creation of an effective organisational

culture. These units are unlikely to align to support the overall success of the

business.

Redesign your approach to rewards and recognition: you will likely need to

change the reward system to encourage the behaviors vital to the desired

organisational culture.

Review all work systems such as employee promotions, pay practices, performance

management, and employee selection to make sure they are aligned with the desired

culture. As an example, you cannot just reward individual performance if the

requirements of your organisational culture specify team work. An executive's total

bonus cannot reward the accomplishment of his department's goals without

recognizing the importance of him playing well with others on the executive team to

accomplish your organisational goals.

You can change your organisational culture to support the accomplishment of your

business goals. Changing the organisational culture requires time, commitment,

planning and proper execution - but it can be done.


http://humanresources.about.com/od/workrelationships/a/play_well.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/selectemployees/index.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/performancemanagement/

http://humanresources.about.com/od/performancemanagement/

http://humanresources.about.com/od/salaryandbenefits/index.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossaryp/g/promotion.htm

2.9 Developing a change management plan

Change management is a process that allows companies to effectively implement a

change within their organisation. But, before you begin trying to implement the intended

change, you need to create a change management plan. There are many advantages

and disadvantages of change management. You need to decide for yourself if you are

willing to accept the disadvantages before you move forward with your plan. It helps to

read an overview of change management before you start.

Change management is necessary because most businesses nowadays are very

decentralized. Multiple employees or users may be the ones who are making a change

to a system. This could lead to trouble if those making the changes do not understand

how these changes could affect the organisation as a whole. This is why you should

always have a change management plan in place before a change is made.

Plan objectives

The objectives of your plan should be pretty obvious, but you should have them written

down somewhere. For example:

Train and educate employees, stakeholders, management, and clients about why

the change is necessary and what the change will involve.

Come up with back-out procedures in case the change is not having the desired

effect.

Implement the planned change.

Monitor and evaluate the change before, during and after its implementation.

Plan Guidelines

Your change management plan should involve plenty of documentation. Every change

needs to be documented so that you have a written record of what was done. Also,

communication before, during, and after the process is a must. You need to show why

the change is necessary, what is being done and what risks are involved in the change.

A change management plan can be broken down into several steps. If you follow these

steps, it will help you successfully implement your plan.


http://www.brighthub.com/office/project-management/articles/22750.aspx




1. Create your plan and define your change management process.

You need to come up with procedures for your change management process. Who is

responsible for what? Who will be your change management coordinator? How will you

measure the change and its effectiveness? What tools will be used? What types of

changes are being implemented? What has priority?

2. Submission of change requests.

You need to obtain in writing all of the changes that are being proposed. Change

requests need to be given to the change management coordinator. You should have an

established change request form on hand, which contains both the date, time and what

is being requested. You can see an example of a change management request / record

form in our Media Gallery.

3. Start implementing your change management strategy, and monitor it before, during,

and after the change. You should have back-out strategies in place in case the change

is not effective.

4. Evaluation.

The change coordinator needs to see where change was effective, where it created

problems, and whether or not it was effective as a whole.

5. Update the change management plan if the initial plan is not effective.

You may need to modify the plan for a variety of reasons, including ineffectiveness, too

many back-outs, only a certain amount of changes are being handled, etc.

Once your change management plan has been implemented, you need to constantly

evaluate its success and its impact for years to come. A plan that was effectively

implemented, for example, could fall apart way after its adoption because employees

have slipped back into their old ways of doing things.


http://www.brighthub.com/office/project-management/media/p/18069.aspx

2.10 The Role of the Change Agent

A change agent may be a full time organisational development professional, a leader of

a division or a middle manager charged with the responsibility of bringing about a

change in their area. Anyone involved in helping a team achieve something new

becomes an agent of change. Depending on the type of change they are tasked with, a

change agent may perform any of the following roles.

However a change master is able to perform all of these roles.

Change managers are responsible for garnering support for change and overcoming

resistance to change. There are ten techniques that change managers can use to

accomplish this:

1. Plan well. Appropriate time and effort must go into planning change before

implementation begins.

2. Allow for discussion and negotiation. Employees must have some input into the

changes. This two-way communication can help reduce employee concerns.

3. Allow for participation. If employees participate in changes that affect them, they are

more likely to support those changes.

4. Emphasize the financial benefits. If employees can earn higher compensation

through organisational change, telling them about this possibility will help to increase

support for the change.

5. Avoid too much change. Employees can only handle a certain amount of change

before there are negative repercussions from stress, so changes should be

introduced slowly and over time.

6. Gain political support. For change to be successful, certain key employees (those

with informal power in the organisation) must support it.

7. Let employees see successful change. Employees will be more willing to support

change if they see that it has worked successfully in other companies or other areas

of their company.

8. Reduce uncertainty. Uncertainty about the change effort can cause negative

emotions and actions, and any information that change managers can give to reduce

uncertainty can reduce resistance to change.


9. Ask questions to involve workers. Change managers should ask workers questions

that move them toward a goal or objective or that reinforce positive

accomplishments.

10. Build strong working relationships. Better working relationships in general will aid in

change management; trust and mutual respect are critical elements of good working

relationships.

Managing change can be a reactive or a proactive process, and there are a number of

different models of organisational change. Each model emphasizes different approaches

to understanding and managing change. In many of these models, the role of the

change manager is emphasized. The change manager may be a part of a transitional

management team or may be a change agent. This person facilitates the changes to the

organisation and is often a critical element in the success or failure of the change.

The Various Roles of the Change Agent:

Diagnostician and developer of clear change goals

Like a medical practitioner, the change agent will begin by diagnosing what the real

issues are, and then proposing clear goal directed solutions. They will begin by

analysing:

The existing problems or issues.

The current reality of the organisation / division.

The desired future ideal state.

The barriers preventing the organisation from achieving that desired state.

The forces for change that exist within the organisation.

The dreams, goals and values of the key stakeholders within the organisation.

The organisation's future strategy.

The organisation's values.

The organisation's readiness and capacity for change.


Changes occurring in the organisation's external environment that may impact on the

organisation and its customers.

From this the diagnostician will determine the type of change required by the

organisation.

The facilitator

The most complex role of a change agent is getting others to 'buy in' to the change

process, and getting them committed to taking relevant actions. The facilitator gets

involved in:

Identifying the key stakeholders of the change.

Involving these stakeholders in the diagnostic process. This means helping them to

achieve consensus on the changes the organisation needs to make. When done in a

participative process, this helps create ownership for change.

Helping the stakeholders to set clear goals for their change process.

Educating these stakeholders about the changes they want to make and helping

them to understand how the changes they've selected will impact on the rest of the

organisation. (Systems thinking)

Helping the stakeholders to understand how these changes will benefit the company,

their division and themselves. This in turn builds commitment to the change.

Helping the stakeholders understand the 'costs' of these changes to the company,

their division and to themselves personally.

The designer

Designing a change process that will achieve specific change goals is a creative

process. This involves:

Reviewing all the change tools and interventions that are available.

Selecting those specific change tools and interventions that will help the organisation

to achieve its change goals.


Creating additional activities and interventions to fill any gaps.

Checking that each intervention supports every other intervention, and that all

interventions support the company's values and strategies.

Arranging and integrating these interventions into one simple, seamless, step by step

process.

Deciding on the roles that need to be played to support the process.

The project manager

Many different roles are required for a change process to work. Often a change agent

will play the role of a project manager and co-ordinate the activities of the different role

players. Typical roles in a change process include:

A change steering committee.

The CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of the company.

The executive team.

Regional coordinators (in large scale changes).

External consultants.

Internal consultants.

Middle managers.

Departmental or divisional change agents.

Communications coordinators.

Change web designers.

Marketing professionals.

Individuals within the company.


The educator

Those involved in managing the change, and those who will be affected by the change,

often are surprised by their feelings when confronted by change. Resistance, frustration

and confusion are common emotions associated by change.

A successful change agent educates people about what to expect from the change

process. This includes topics such as:

The psychological phases people go through when experiencing change.

How to deal with these feelings. How to help others understand and deal with their

feelings.

How to deal with 'resistance to change'.

How to make a change process fun, exciting and developmental rather than scary

and frustrating.

How to overcome barriers to change.

Tools for making your change process successful.

The role of creativity in a change process.

The marketer

Many individuals dislike change. While they see that it may benefit the company,

change to them simply means additional work, inefficiencies, feelings of

incompetence, and maybe a more limited career path.

The skillful marketer creates the belief that participating in this change will be:

o Fun and rewarding.

o An opportunity to develop new useful skills.

o An opportunity to increase one's visibility within the organisation.

o Like embarking on an exciting adventure through which every individual discovers

their personal magic.


To do this, the marketer applies innovative marketing techniques more often found in the

advertising, communications industries. These include:

Advertising.

Competitions.

Participative media such as web sites, theatre, and clubs.

Creative media such as themes, logos, slogans, story telling, art, music, songs and

'war cries'.

Themed gifts to reinforce the change.

Awards and prizes.

Role models and success stories.

Inspiration agent

Why is the Oprah show so successful? People react with love, energy, excitement and

creativity to anything that touches their soul. An inspiration agent finds ways to use the

change process to:

Help individuals discover the magic they have within them.

Help individuals to dream of the personal greatness they could achieve.

Encourage individuals to take risks to use their special magic.

Help individuals to overcome barriers to personal success.

Celebrate individual's small successes.

Systems integrator and co-ordinator

Often individuals who contribute to a change, get discouraged when they find they are

being punished rather than rewarded for their efforts. This situation arises when the

reward and recognition systems in the company are not aligned to the change. The

change agent often needs to ensure that the following systems support the change they

are making.


Budgeting.

Performance management.

Compensation systems.

Incentive and reward systems.

Reporting systems.

Measurement criteria.

Promotions criteria.

Monitor

Since organisations are integrated systems, any change to one part of the system may

trigger unexpected changes to other parts of the system. Similarly, unless you consider

changes to the culture of your company, you may find that certain elements of the

system may prevent your change from working.

The monitor role regularly measures progress towards the change goals. They

constantly question "what is working", "what isn't working" and "what do we need to

change".

They provide regular feedback on progress to:

The CEO.

The executive team.

Other change agents or change roles.

Managers.

Individuals involved in change.

They encourage them to:


Identify obstacles to change and find creative ways of overcoming these at their own

levels.

Identify obstacles that require changes to the entire system and may require

approval from the Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

Identify and share success stories.

Turn successful people into role models to encourage others.

Recognise and reward those who contribute to change

Qualities of a change agent

While many people will find that they can perform one or two of the agent roles with

ease, a change master would be able to perform all the change roles.

The ideal change master would have the following qualities:

Common sense and the courage to use it.

Credibility and trust – the ability to work at all levels in the organisation.

A wide range of business knowledge – preferably someone with experience in 3-4

different areas, or an Masters in Business Administration (MBA), or a general

management experience.

Knowledge of change management.

The ability to work with teams of people both inside and outside the organisation.

This includes the ability to work with people across all departments.

The ability to do very unstructured work.

Creativity. The ability to custom design processes to meet the goals of the

organisation.

Self confidence balanced by humility.

Facilitation skills.


Design skills.

Coaching skills.

A love of innovation and new ways of doing things.

A sense of humour and a sense of fun.

A spirit of caring.

The ability to inspire people. To bring out the magic within every individual and every

team.

Skills Essential for a Change Agent:

Skills and strategies

Managing the kinds of changes encountered by and instituted within organisations

requires an unusually broad and finely honed set of skills, chief among which are the

following.

Political skills

Organisations are first and foremost social systems. Without people there can be no

organisation. Lose sight of this fact and any would-be change agent will likely lose his or

her head. Organisations are hotly and intensely political. And, as one wag pointed out,

the lower the stakes, the more intense the politics. Change agents dare not join in this

game but they had better understand it. This is one area where you must make your own

judgments and keep your own counsel; no one can do it for you.

Analytical skills

Make no mistake about it, those who would be change agents had better be very good

at something, and that something better be analysis. Guessing won’t do. Insight is nice,

even useful, and sometimes shines with brilliance, but it is darned difficult to sell and

almost impossible to defend. A lucid, rational, well-argued analysis can be ignored and

even suppressed, but not successfully contested and, in most cases, will carry the day.

If not, then the political issues haven’t been adequately addressed.


Two particular sets of skills are very important here: (1) workflow operations or systems

analysis, and (2) financial analysis. Change agents must learn to take apart and

reassemble operations and systems in novel ways, and then determine the financial and

political impacts of what they have done. Conversely, they must be able to start with

some financial measure or indicator or goal, and make their way quickly to those

operations and systems that, if reconfigured a certain way, would have the desired

financial impact. Those who master these two techniques have learned a trade that will

be in demand for the foreseeable future. (This trade, by the way, has a name. It is called

“Solution Engineering.”)

People skills

As stated earlier, people are the sine qua non of organisation. Moreover, they come

characterized by all manner of sizes, shapes, colors, intelligence and ability levels,

gender, sexual preferences, national origins, first and second languages, religious

beliefs, attitudes toward life and work, personalities, and priorities — and these are just a

few of the dimensions along which people vary. We have to deal with them all.

The skills most needed in this area are those that typically fall under the heading of

communication or interpersonal skills. To be effective, we must be able to listen and

listen actively, to restate, to reflect, to clarify without interrogating, to draw out the

speaker, to lead or channel a discussion, to plant ideas, and to develop them. All these

and more are needed. Not all of us will have to learn Russian, French, or Spanish, but

most of us will have to learn to speak Systems, Marketing, Manufacturing, Finance,

Personnel, Legal, and a host of other organisational dialects. More important, we have to

learn to see things through the eyes of these other inhabitants of the organisational

world. A situation viewed from a marketing frame of reference is an entirely different

situation when seen through the eyes of a systems person. Part of the job of a change

agent is to reconcile and resolve the conflict between and among disparate (and

sometimes desperate) points of view. Charm is great if you have it. Courtesy is even

better. A well-paid compliment can buy gratitude. A sincere “Thank you” can earn

respect.

System skills


There’s much more to this than learning about computers, although most people

employed in today’s world of work do need to learn about computer-based information

systems. For now, let’s just say that a system is an arrangement of resources and

routines intended to produce specified results. To organize is to arrange. A system

reflects organisation and, by the same token, an organisation is a system.

A word processing operator and the word processing equipment operated to form a

system. So do computers and the larger, information processing systems in which

computers are so often embedded. These are generally known as “hard” systems. There

are “soft” systems as well: compensation systems, appraisal systems, promotion

systems, and reward and incentive systems.

There are two sets of systems skills to be mastered. Many people associate the first set

with computers and it is exemplified by “systems analysis.” This set of skills, by the way,

actually predates the digital computer and is known elsewhere (particularly in the United

States Air Force and the aerospace industry) as “systems engineering.” For the most

part, the kind of system with which this skill set concerns itself is a “closed” system

which, for now, we can say is simply a mechanistic or contrived system with no purpose

of its own and incapable of altering its own structure. In other words, it cannot learn and

it cannot change of its own volition. The second set of system skills is associated with a

body of knowledge generally referred to as General Systems Theory (GST) and it deals

with people, organisations, industries, economies, and even nations as socio-technical

systems — as “open,” purposive systems, carrying out transactions with other systems

and bent on survival, continuance, prosperity, dominance, plus a host of other goals and

objectives.

Business skills

Simply put, you’d better understand how a business works. In particular, you’d better

understand how the business in which and on which you’re working works. This entails

an understanding of money — where it comes from, where it goes, how to get it, and

how to keep it. It also calls into play knowledge of markets and marketing, products and

product development, customers, sales, selling, buying, hiring, firing, EEO (Equal

Employment Opportunity), AAP (Advanced Administrative Procedures), and just about

anything else you might think of.


2.11 How HR / SDF Can Deliver Change Management Results

Human Resources generalists, Skills Development Facilitators (SDFs), Managers, and

Directors, depending on the size of the organisation, may have overlapping

responsibilities. In larger organisations, the Human Resources Generalist, the Manager,

and the Director have clearly defined, separated roles in HR management with

progressively more authority and responsibility in the hands of the Manager, the

Director, and ultimately, the Vice President who may lead several departments including

administration.

HR directors, and occasionally HR managers, may head up several different

departments that are each led by functional or specialized HR staff such as the training

manager, the compensation manager, or the recruiting manager.

Human Resources staff members are advocates for both the company and the people

who work in the company. Consequently, a good HR professional performs a constant

balancing act to meet both needs successfully.

The Changing Human Resources Role

The role of the HR professional is changing. In the past, HR managers were often

viewed as the systematizing, policing arm of executive management. Their role was

more closely aligned with personnel and administration functions that were viewed by

the organisation as paperwork.

When you consider that the initial HR function, in many companies, comes out of the

administration or finance department because hiring employees, paying employees, and

dealing with benefits were the organisation's first HR needs, this is not surprising.

In this role, the HR professional served executive agendas well, but was frequently

viewed as a road block by much of the rest of the organisation. While some need for this

role occasionally remains — you wouldn’t want every manager putting his own spin on a

sexual harassment policy, as an example — much of the HR role is transforming itself.


http://humanresources.about.com/od/jobdescriptions/a/HR_recruiter.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/jobdescriptions/f/hr_job_comp.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/jobdescriptions/f/hr_job_train.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/jobdescriptions/f/hr_job_train.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossaryh/f/hr_department.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/jobdescriptions/a/HR_Director.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/glossaryh/f/hr_management.htm



http://humanresources.about.com/od/jobdescriptions/a/HR_Generalist.htm

New HR Role

The role of the HR manager must parallel the needs of his or her changing organisation.

Successful organisations are becoming more adaptable, resilient, quick to change

direction, and customer-centered.

Within this environment, the HR professional, who is considered necessary by line

managers, is a strategic partner, an employee sponsor or advocate and a change

mentor. At the same time, especially the HR Generalist, still has responsibility for

employee benefits administration, often payroll, and employee paperwork, especially in

the absence of an HR Assistant.

Depending on the size of the organisation, the HR manager has responsibility for all of

the functions that deal with the needs and activities of the organisation's people including

these areas of responsibility.

Recruiting.

Hiring.


http://humanresources.about.com/od/selectemployees/Employee_Selection_and_Employee_Hiring.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/recruiting/Recruiting_Employee_Recruitment_Recruiting_Talented_Employees.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/jobdescriptions/a/HR_assistant.htm

Training.

Organisation Development.

Communication.

Performance Management.

Coaching.

Policy Recommendation.

Salary and Benefits.

Team Building.

Employee Relations.

Leadership.

With all of this in mind, in Human Resource Champions, Dave Ulrich, one of the best

thinkers and writers in the HR field today, and a professor at the University of Michigan,

recommends three additional roles for the HR manager.

Business and Strategic Partner

In today’s organisations, to guarantee their viability and ability to contribute, HR

managers need to think of themselves as strategic partners. In this role, the HR person

contributes to the development of and the accomplishment of the organisation-wide

business plan and objectives.

The HR business objectives are established to support the attainment of the overall

strategic business plan and objectives. The tactical HR representative is deeply

knowledgeable about the design of work systems in which people succeed and

contribute. This strategic partnership impacts HR services such as the design of work

positions; hiring; reward, recognition and strategic pay; performance development and

appraisal systems; career and succession planning; and employee development.

To be successful business partners, the HR staff members have to think like business

people, know finance and accounting, and be accountable and responsible for cost

reductions and the measurement of all HR programs and processes. It's not enough to

ask for a seat at the executive table; HR people will have to prove they have the

business savvy necessary to sit there.


http://humanresources.about.com/cs/strategichr/a/exec_success.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/cs/publications/tp/hrbooks.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/managementandleadership/Management_Leadership_Business_Strategy_Small_Business.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/legalissues/Policy_Samples_Job_Descriptions_Employment_Law_Employee_Relations.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/involvementteams/Team_Building_Employee_Empowerment_Employee_Involvement.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/salaryandbenefits/Salary_Benefits_Variable_Pay_Bonuses_Profit_Sharing.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/policiesandsamples1/a/how_to_policy.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/coachingmentoring/Coaching_Mentoring_Consulting_Learning_Organizations.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/interpersonalcommunication/Communication_Email_Newsletters_Meetings_Presentations.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/development/Change_Management_Organization_Development_Culture.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/od/training/Training_Development_and_Education_for_Employees.htm

Employee Advocate

As an employee sponsor or advocate, the HR manager plays an integral role in

organisational success via his knowledge about and advocacy of people. This advocacy

includes expertise in how to create a work environment in which people will choose to be

motivated, contributing, and happy.

Fostering effective methods of goal setting, communication and empowerment through

responsibility, builds employee ownership of the organisation. The HR professional helps

establish the organisational culture and climate in which people have the competency,

concern and commitment to serve customers well.

In this role, the HR manager provides employee development opportunities, employee

assistance programs, gain sharing and profit-sharing strategies, organisation

development interventions, due process approaches to problem solving and regularly

scheduled communication opportunities.

Change Champion

The constant evaluation of the effectiveness of the organisation results in the need for

the HR professional to frequently champion change. Both knowledge about and the

ability to execute successful change strategies make the HR professional exceptionally

valued.

Knowing how to link change to the strategic needs of the organisation will minimize

employee dissatisfaction and resistance to change.

The HR professional contributes to the organisation by constantly assessing the

effectiveness of the HR function. He also sponsors change in other departments and in

work practices. To promote the overall success of his organisation, he champions the

identification of the organisational mission, vision, values, goals and action plans.

Finally, he helps determine the measures that will tell his organisation how well it is

succeeding in all of this.

Changing and overlapping responsibilities plus diminishing staff have placed a burden

on HR departments as they struggle to change with the times.

“The traditional role of HR in the 21st century is changing into integrating HR into

organisational business planning, which adds another dimension to the delivery of HR

services,” says Frank Abbott, a corporate trainer program manager for Houston

Community College’s Corporate College.


“In this new role, HR professionals who are managers and supervisors must take on the

emerging roles of business partner, change agent, and leader in new organisational

structures different from the past.”

This becomes more challenging, he says, as HR professionals try to meet this challenge

while continuing day-to-day operational and political management of HR.

These new expectations and demands, combined with a steady decrease in HR staff

(one-third of the HR community will be eligible to retire in the next five years, Abbott

says), means a once-stable occupation is entering uncharted territory.

On top of these changes, he says, many HR departments must do all of this with a

downsized staff that does not have the expertise needed to meet the demands.

“The question is: Are HR professionals capable of meeting those challenges and what

must they do to meet those challenges?” Abbott asks. “Another question is: How do you

prepare existing HR professionals for leadership roles when their current leaders are

retiring or moving on?”

Among challenges faced in the 21st century for HR professionals are increased

outsourcing, downsizing of HR departments, a conflict of 20th century HR functions

versus more forward-looking responsibilities, a lack of understanding of “the business”

among HR staff that keeps them away from the decision-making table and an increased

emphasis on improving efficiency of HR services, among others.

“The major role of ‘strategic business partner’ for the HR professional is increasing

substantially,” Abbott says. “They are now identified as a member of the management

team involved with HR planning, organisation design and strategic change.”

He adds that HR executives are relying heavily on the Internet to educate managers

about existing HR responsibilities and procedures, which is taking them away from their

key role of providing HR services to employees and implementing policies and

procedures.

There is also a growing concern among HR professionals on how to meet organisational

needs with fewer staff, he says.

“There seems to be a new ‘mindset’ of ‘try to do at least better, if not more, with less,’ ”

he says. “Narrowly focused specialists are being asked to grow into the new generalists’


roles in the evolving workplace. The HR generalists of the 21st century will have to have

all the competencies necessary to have a place in the businesses of the future.”

Abbott offers the following ways to meet the challenges of the 21st century:

Obtain all of the skills necessary to play an active role in charting the strategic

direction of HR’s partnering within the company.

Develop new competency models that refocus and revitalize the HR workforce.

Newly developed competencies can offer HR practitioners an opportunity to define

excellence and, even more importantly, demonstrate what they can bring to their

organisation. HR professionals that can demonstrate their value to their company will

inevitably be rewarded with a “seat at the table.”

Show creativity and efficiency by adapting some of the existing competency models

and HR delivery systems and tailor them to fit individual organisational needs.

Identify improved technology that facilitates HR decision-making by managers and

reduces the workload for HR professionals. An effective and efficient on-line system,

used in conjunction with a computer-based long-distance learning system, has

received positive reactions from many managers. Check out the Air Force System,

PERMISS, which is currently being utilized efficiently by many organisations.

Make HR professionals aware of the competencies they must possess in order for

them to be successful in the 21st century world of HR.

Adopt new competencies, redefine roles focused on results and evolve into an HR

professional that makes a bottom-line difference for the organisation.

After putting into place your new systems and competencies, develop an in-house

marketing campaign that highlights the services HR can provide to the organisation.

Market this within the company and then market it outside of the company to HR

professional organisations in public presentations and on-line company Web sites

dedicated to this vision.

This can result in being asked to ‘sit at the table’ in a consultative role for HR

departments in other companies as well as serve as an add-on competency for the HR


department. This has a strong potential for generating revenue for the company and thus

increase the value-added function of HR function to the managers within the company.

“In order for the HR professional to be a leader in the 21st century, they will need to

increasingly embrace the challenge of serving in the role of ‘business strategists’ and

‘change agents’ for their organisations,” Abbott says. “What is important is that many

managers in companies are desperate for such help from HR. In response to these

opportunities or demands, the successful HR professional of the 21st century must

emerge their roles along with the identification of new competencies needed to get the

job done.”

2.12 Why Change Management Often Fails

"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more

uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things."

Have you experienced a failed change lately? Been a part of a team or an organisation

that attempted something different...and failed?

We've all seen attempts at change bomb. What happens to scuttle well-intentioned

effort? The following are some of the most common reasons I've identified why

organisational change fails. You can use the list for diagnostic purposes, or to prevent

mistakes in future attempts at change.

1. Misstarts

A misstart occurs when a change is ill-advised, hastily implemented or attempted without

sufficient commitment. This is a leadership credibility killer.

2. Making Change an Option

When leadership commits to a change, the message must be that the change is not an

option. But the message that often comes across is "We'd like you to change, we're

asking you to change, we implore you to change, please change..." Whenever people

have the option not to change, they won't.


3. A Focus Only on Process

Leaders can get so caught up on planning and managing the process that they don't

notice that no tangible results are being achieved. The activity becomes more important

than the results.

4. A Focus Only on Results

This stems from a belief that the end justifies any means. Organisations tend to fail

miserably in this regard: they downplay or ignore the human pain of change. It is this

insensitivity to people's feelings that not only prevents the change but destroys morale

and loyalty in the process.

5. Not Involving Those Expected to Implement the Change

A great deal of resentment is aroused when management announces a change and then

mandates the specifics of implementation. Employees need to be involved in two ways.

First, their input and suggestions should be solicited when planning the change.

Secondly, after a change has been committed to, they should be involved in determining

the means. Leadership needs to communicate, "Here's what must happen. How do you

think it can best be done?

6. Delegated to "Outsiders"

Change is an inside job. Although outsiders like consultants might provide valuable

ideas and input, people inside the systems must accept responsibility for the change.

Scapegoating and passing the buck is not an option.

7. No Change in Reward System

If you keep rewarding employees for what they've always done, you'll keep getting what

you've always gotten. Make sure that rewards, recognition and compensation are

adjusted for the desired change.


8. Leadership Doesn't Walk the Talk

For change to happen, everybody involved must buy-in. Leadership, however, must take

the first steps. Change is aborted whenever leadership doesn't demonstrate the same

commitment they expect from others.

9. Wrong Size

In this instance, the change is too massive to be achievable or too small to be

significant. Like a good goal, a change program should be neither too easy nor too

impossible.

10. No Follow-Through

The best planning is worthless if not implemented, monitored and carried out.

Responsibility must be clearly defined for making sure that follow-through is timely and

intense.

There are 4 well know factors for failure - the “four factors for failure” in managing

change can help identify problems more rapidly, and can show where initial action

should be concentrated:

1. Lack of consistent leadership.

2. De-motivated staff kept in the dark.

3. Lack of capacity: budget cuts, no spend-to-save policy, short-term approach to

investment, stressed out staff working hard just to stand still.

4. Lack of initiative to “do something different”.

These four factors for failure then lead to the “treadmill effect”:-

1. No time for reflection, planning and learning.

2. No improvement in design and implementation.

3. Increasing need to do something.

4. Increasing failure and unplanned consequences.

5. Go back to 1. and repeat.


2.13 Measuring the Impact of Change Processes

What advice would you give a friend or business associate if they said to you, "I just

heard about this great investment and I am really excited about it because it has so

much potential. In order to get involved, I have to put a lot of money down. And the only

negative seems to be that the return on investment (ROI) is zero." Seeing the absurdity

of this potential opportunity, you would probably tell them not to invest. This scenario, as

preposterous as it might seem at first, actually illustrates a common phenomenon or

trend that is happening to companies worldwide.

What is this trend? Companies are spending millions for business improvement projects

whose costs will far out weigh their realized benefits. At first glance this might even

seem difficult to believe—much less be accurate. That is, until you begin to look at the

evidence. In this article the authors look at over ten years of independent studies that

show the average rate of return on all large project implementations is negative. The

review of the studies begins with the McKinsey study, in which the projects of over 40

companies were investigated. From the results of this and the other studies, this article

will begin an inquiry that will help to answer the following questions:

1. Why are so many companies making the same mistake?

2. What could companies who do not want to fall into this trap do differently?

The Common Project Success Denominator

The McKinsey study examined many project variables and in particular, the effect of an

Organisational Change Management (OCM) program on a project's ROI. The study

showed the ROI was:

143 percent when an excellent OCM program was part of the initiative;

35 percent when there was a poor OCM program or no program.

What do those these results mean? A 143 percent ROI means that for every dollar spent

on the project the company is gaining 43 cents. On the other hand, a 35 percent ROI

means that for every dollar spent they are losing 65 cents.

The 11 most unsuccessful companies in the McKinsey study had poor change

management, which showed up as the following:

Lack of commitment and follow through by senior executives;


Defective project management skills among middle managers;

Lack of training of and confusion among frontline employees.

The 11 most successful companies in the study had excellent OCM programs:

Senior and middle managers and frontline employees were all involved;

Everyone's responsibilities were clear;

Reasons for the project were understood and accepted throughout the

organisation.

Measuring a Project's Return on Investment

For a project to get approved there has to be a compelling business case. A business

case looks at the cost of improvement project and weighs that against the benefits the

company will gain. If the benefits outweigh the costs, the ROI is positive and thus the

project is approved.

The formula for calculating Return on Investment (ROI) is:

The Benefit of Project is based on the project's purpose. The purpose could range

from increasing sales to reducing the cost of handling customers. One generally

estimates that making certain changes to the business, installing new software, making

processes more efficient, etc., will yield a particular project benefit that has a dollar

amount associated with it.

The Project Cost includes hard costs, such as hardware and software, as well as what

is sometimes termed soft costs. While the paradigm for many accounting systems has

not shifted, the research also shows that these so-called soft costs are actually as—or

more important to—a project's success than the hard costs. As a result, these costs

should no longer be termed soft costs because they have a defined, bottom-line effect.


Soft costs, for example, can include items such as the salaries for the time period people

are on the improvement project. Salaries are important to include because the time

employees spend on the improvement project should be seen as a cost to the

organisation. The longer the project takes, the longer employees will be away from their

primary job — whether it is sales, marketing or manufacturing. If they are working on an

improvement project, they cannot spend the same amount of time they normally would

on their regular job.

If a project experiences delays due to politics, lack of planning, unforeseen issues, or

other reasons, as is often the case, the overall cost of the project increases because the

time to implement the project has gone beyond the original estimate. As the costs

increase, any potential benefit starts to be chipped away and in some cases more

money is spent on the improvement than the improvement ends up providing. An

organisation that does not consider soft costs as hard costs is putting the organisation at

a huge financial risk because the project's scope, timeline, and therefore budget,

increase (Figure 1). Within this context of project ROI, the following section will examine

more studies that have evaluated the success or failure of project implementations and

their ROIs. Again, in this context ROI is taken to mean that the project provides more

financial benefit than it costs the organisation in a reasonable time period.

Figure above: Increased scope, timeline, and budget put an organisation at risk because

they erode the project's potential benefits.

No Change Management Means Poor Project Results

Disappointing implementation results are being reported in all kinds of projects:

Customer Relationship Management (CRM), Contact Centers, Enterprise Resource

Planning (ERP), Share Services, Supply Chain, mergers and acquisitions, new pricing


strategies, cost reduction initiatives, and including changes in a university's method of

recording hourly wages. The following examples show the trend that no project is

immune to ROI failure, regardless of who conducts the study.

Results of a study by Boston Consulting Group that examined 100 large companies

found the following:

52 percent reported achieving their business goals

37 percent could point to a tangible financial impact for their projects

A study entitled Six Ways IT Projects Fail published in Darwin (2001) revealed the

reasons were due to the following:

1. Lack of executive sponsorship.

2. Lack of early stakeholder input.

3. Poorly defined or changing specs.

4. Unrealistic expectations.

5. Uncooperative business partners.

6. Poor or dishonest communication.

A study published in DestinationCRM.com (August 2003) entitled Six Barriers to CRM

Project Success showed that the failure of CRM projects was due to the following:

Lack of guidance.

Integration woes.

No long-term strategy.

Dirty data.

Lack of employee buy-in.

No accountability.

In 2004, a study entitled Software Disasters Are Often People Problems was published

on CNN.com. This study showed that at that time serious, preventable errors were

related to poor management of the people part of the project. For example:

Passengers wait at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas on September

14 for flights delayed by a communications system failure.


New software at Hewlett-Packard Co. was supposed to get orders in and out the

door faster at the computer giant. Instead, a botched deployment cut into

earnings in a big way in August and executives got fired.

Retailer Ross Stores Inc.'s profits plummeted 40 percent after a merchandise-

tracking system failed.

The study's conclusion was that even as systems grow more complicated, failures are

related less to technical malfunctions and more due to bad management,

communication, or training during project implementation.

Gartner's industry analysts report a staggering 55 to 70 percent of CRM projects fail to

meet their objectives. In Bain and Company's survey of 400 executives, 20 percent of

respondents felt their CRM initiatives actually damaged customer relationships. When

the objective is to build strong relationships with customers, why is this goal eluding so

many companies, especially when they are spending millions and sometimes billions to

reach it?

What Is Failing?

In contrast to these studies about the people part of business, a Forrester Research

study showed that companies implementing, for instance, a new technology like CRM,

are satisfied with the actual software application's functionality and capability.

So, if the technology is not failing, what is? A study done by ProSci, a recognized leader

in change management research, again pointed to the ability of the organisation to

efficiently and effectively manage the changes the project was bringing about in the

organisation. The ProSci results showed that a project's greatest success factors are the

following:

1. Effective and strong executive sponsorship.

2. Buy-in from front line managers and employees.

3. Exceptional teams.

4. Continuous and targeted communication.

5. Planned and organized approach.

The ProSci study results also showed that a project's greatest obstacle factors are:


1. Employee resistance at all levels (Surprisingly, the effectiveness or correctness

of the actual business solution, process, or system changes was cited only 5

times in over 200 responses).

2. Middle-management resistance.

3. Poor executive sponsorship.

4. Limited time, budget, and resources.

5. Corporate inertia and politics.

Another study by AMR Research, a firm whose analysts focus on independent, leading-

edge research that bridges the gap between business and their technology solutions,

found companies that had successful software implementations spent 10 to 15 percent

of their project budget on OCM (Organisational Change Management). All of the

success criteria found in each of these studies is what comprises an OCM program that

increases a project's ROI.

The Results Chain – Planning for and Measuring Impact of Change Projects

It’s worth focusing on the two foundational principles of results based management

(RBM) before looking at the results chain:

Projects cause results. Results are more important than projects.

We’re going to unpack these a bit here and see how they form the backbone of

ubiquitous RBM charts.

The Simple Results Chain

The results chain expresses the cause-and-effect relationship between a project and

results. It’s a way of representing the statement: “Projects

cause results.”

We use the arrow to show causality; that is, to show that

something causes something else. So whenever you see the

arrow in the results chain, you can insert the word “cause” or


http://http:/twogoats.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/results-based-management/

http://twogoats.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/results-chain-simple.jpg

“lead to.” If you prefer, you can express it using “if / then”: If we do this project, then we’ll

see these results.

The Expanded Results Chain

Of course, if you’ve seen or worked with RBM frameworks, you

know that things get a bit busier than the simple results chain.

Each of the two elements – projects and results – in the chain

above gets expanded, giving us different components to consider.

Even so, the results chain remains a way of expressing the

concept that projects cause results.

Projects: Inputs and Activities

To begin, we expand the “projects” side of the results chain into two components: inputs

and activities.

Inputs are the resources that we will need to carry out the planned activities. They

include things like people, money, goods, materials, infrastructure, and technology.

Activities are the things that we do. Some familiar project activities include digging wells,

conducting training session, distributing seeds and tools, forming savings groups, and

setting up clinics.

In the results chain, and in RBM, projects include inputs and activities. According to the

basic principles of this management approach, the projects cause the results that are

important.

Results: Outputs, Outcomes, and Impact

Now we expand the second half of the results chain: the results side. Results are divided

into three big categories called outputs, outcomes, and impact.

Outputs are the immediate results of activities. For example, the output of digging wells

would be the number of functioning wells in a community. Or the output of a training

session would be the number of trained individuals.


http://twogoats.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/results-chain-expanded.jpg

Outcomes are medium-term results caused by outputs. Examples of outcomes might be

households with access to clean drinking water or the percentage of trainees who start a

business or find a job.

The impact is the long-term, broad societal change that the outcomes lead to. For

example, improved longevity or decreased malnutrition might be the impact of a project.

Putting it all together

Our results chain now reads something like this:

Inputs lead to activities, which cause outputs, which cause outcomes, which cause the

impact.

Another way of reading it would be:

If we have the inputs, then we can do the activities;

If we do the activities, then we will achieve the outputs;

If we achieve the outputs, then we will achieve the outcomes; and

If we achieve the outcomes, then we will contribute to the impact.

Illustrated below are the basic components of a results chain and the indicator / measure

terminology that is used to measure impact through the results chain.


The basic components of a results chain:

The terminology used in a results chain:


Section 3: Adapting to Change

3.1 Creating Resilient Organisations

What is a ‘Resilient Organisation’? The term resilience is used in several different fields

of study, and takes on slightly different definitions for each. However, a generic definition

refers to resilience as the ability of a material or system to absorb change gracefully

whilst retaining core properties or functions.

Organisations deal with uncertainties and unexpected events all the time, and managing

these presents both opportunities and risks for the organisation. Above a certain scale

however, crisis events differ from day-to-day management, in that organisations have to

operate out of their comfort zone, interact with organisations they do not normally work

alongside, and have to make and share strategic decisions quickly and effectively. Being

able to respond effectively to crisis events is a real test of what makes an organisation

‘tick’.

The economic implications of organisations being unprepared for crises are significant.

In the September 11th attacks, business interruption losses far exceeded the sum of all

property losses. In our increasingly interconnected business environment,

consequences go well beyond the zone of any physical damage, affecting businesses

right along the supply chain.

An organisation’s ability to survive a major crisis depends on their organisational

structure, the management and operational systems they have in place, and the

resilience of these.


Resilience is about ensuring that an organisation is still able to achieve its core

objectives in the face of adversity. This means not only reducing the size and frequency

of crises (vulnerability), but also improving the ability and speed of the organisation to

manage crises effectively (adaptive capacity). Awareness is a recent addition to this

definition and reflects a growing appreciation of the need to manage strategic risks as a

process and not an event; by that we mean the ability of the organisation to seek out

new opportunities even in times of crisis. In highly dynamic environments, such as the

business world, an organisation is never a static entity. Some sectors will be more

stable than others, but nevertheless, an organisation that remains exactly the same over

time will eventually erode its potential. This means that to be truly resilient an

organisation should not seek to just recover back to exactly where it was before the

crisis, but have the reserves to continue looking for emerging risks and opportunities on

the horizon. Severity and duration of impact on performance as a measure of an

organisation’s resilience, where resilience is inversely proportional to the area under the

curve.

Whilst risk management is being used more extensively today, there are few

organisations that apply risk management at a strategic level across the organisation.

Uptake of business continuity / emergency planning is increasing, but still only a small

proportion of organisations have any planning in place. Those organisations that do

have plans often lack the depth required to sustain a prolonged response capability. In

our research we are also finding that although many resilience issues cross

organisational boundaries, much of the planning being done is very inward looking. One

of the biggest potentials for forward progress is to get organisations working together to

manage risks across this interface, and developing and practicing strategies for working


together during crises. This is particularly needed where outsourcing means that

contracted organisations are relied upon to deliver critical services or supplies.

We are also seeing that the key underlying resilience issues are often more about the

softer, less tangible aspects of an organisation that relate to its culture and leadership,

and vision. For example qualities such as good communication and relationships within

the organisation and with key customers and stakeholders, trust, and a shared vision

and priorities across the organisation are all fundamental to enabling different parts of

the organisation to work together to achieve a common objective. This is particularly true

at times of crisis when it is often the informal networks and relationships (who you know

that you can call on for a favour…) that count. Building resilience is therefore also about

reviewing the culture of the organisation and recognising the strengths and weaknesses

that culture brings to the organisation in times of crisis. In order to build resilience, a

broad cross-section of the organisation (and not just the crisis management team) need

to be involved in regular ‘war-game’ type exercises to actually experience what and how

decisions will be made during crises and the role that they can play in facilitating the

response and recovery of the organisation. These crisis simulation exercises are critical

for:

Highlighting vulnerabilities (and creating the motivation for reducing them),

Improving the adaptive capacity of the organisation by gaining experience in working

together to solve unique problems, and

Enhancing awareness of critical dependencies and functions within the organisation,

plus giving the confidence to seek out opportunities even in times of crisis.

Unfortunately, there is no ‘silver bullet’; resilience is something that an organisation must

continually work at. But because it is so intrinsically related to the day-to-day ethos of the

organisation, it can also create significant payback in terms of helping to refocus on what

is important to the organisation and creating a shared understanding of the roles people

play in making those a reality. Most importantly, resilience needs to move from being a

‘back room’ issue to being a strategic one and be regularly debated as part of strategic

planning for any organisation.

The Five Principles of Organisational Resilience

1. Leadership: Resilience begins with enterprise leadership setting the priorities,

allocating the resources and making the commitments to establish organisational


resilience throughout the enterprise. Leadership achieves a balance between risk taking

and risk containment to ensure ongoing innovation, but in the context of prudent risk

minimization. These two apparently conflicting objectives for leadership are framed in

two.

2. Culture: The second component of organisational resilience is enterprise culture. A

resilient culture is built on principles of organisational empowerment, purpose, trust and

accountability. The RVO (Resilient Virtual Organisation) must evolve systematically into

networks of employees who self-organize into communities of practice for learning and

mentoring, and who are empowered to participate, lead and organize virtual teams (in

which most of an enterprise's productive work is completed). It is those networks of

empowered and connected employees that form the bedrock of the RVO. The resilient

organisational culture has a strong sense of enterprise purpose that cascades down and

across the enterprise. It is that strong sense of purpose that glues the RVO together

and aligns individual, workgroup and enterprise goals as a continuum. A resilient culture

is built on a strong sense of trust between employees, management, suppliers and

partners.

3. People: As mentioned above, the bedrock of organisational resilience is the

enterprise workforce. People who are properly selected, motivated, equipped and led will

overcome almost any obstacle or disruption. There are countless stories that emerged

after Sept. 11 about individual heroism, self-initiative and self-sacrifice. Yet, to harness

people's incredible ability to lead and respond during trying circumstances requires a

systematic enterprise strategy for people selection and people support.

4. Systems: The RVO is built on an infrastructure of extensive enterprise connectivity

and information robustness. That framework is set forth in "Workplace Agility Equals

Workplace Resilience: Here's How.” The premise is that leading global organisations are

achieving agility and flexibility by combining a highly distributed workplace model with a

highly robust and collaborative IT infrastructure. These technology topics are covered in

detail elsewhere in this special report. Also in this Spotlight, we delve into the

technology, systems and management capabilities that must be built into a highly

resilient global enterprise in "Globalization Enables Resilience, Along With Challenges".

5. Settings: The final component is the physical deployment of the workplace.

Workplace resilience is achieved through the distribution of the workplace into multiple,


dispersed settings. Alternative workplace techniques such as office "hostelling,"

telecommuting and desk sharing provide the level of workplace flexibility and agility that

is essential for mitigating the risk of catastrophic or disruptive incidents at an enterprise

location. Enterprise resilience is the flip side of organisational agility, as explained in

"Workplace Resilience Equals Workplace Agility: Here's How.” However, it's not enough

to create a highly distributed and connected environment. It is essential as well to

undertake a comprehensive assessment of workplace security and safety. This

workplace "triage" is the first step in identifying high-risk locations from people and

operational standpoints.

3.2 Do’s and Don’ts of Change Management

How do you manage change? The honest answer is that you manage it pretty much the

same way you’d manage anything else of a turbulent, messy, chaotic nature, that is, you

don’t really manage it, you grapple with it. It’s more a matter of leadership ability than

management skill.

The first thing to do is jump in. You can’t do anything about it from the outside.

A clear sense of mission or purpose is essential. The simpler the mission statement

the better. “Kick ass in the marketplace” is a whole lot more meaningful than

“Respond to market needs with a range of products and services that have been

carefully designed and developed to compare so favorably in our customers’ eyes

with the products and services offered by our competitors that the majority of buying

decisions will be made in our favor.”

Build a team. “Lone wolves” have their uses, but managing change isn’t one of

them. On the other hand, the right kind of lone wolf makes an excellent temporary

team leader.

Maintain a flat organisational team structure and rely on minimal and informal

reporting requirements.

Pick people with relevant skills and high energy levels. You’ll need both.

Toss out the rulebook. Change, by definition, calls for a configured response, not

adherence to prefigured routines.

Shift to an action-feedback model. Plan and act in short intervals. Do your analysis

on the fly. No lengthy up-front studies, please. Remember the hare and the tortoise.


Set flexible priorities. You must have the ability to drop what you’re doing and tend to

something more important.

Treat everything as a temporary measure. Don’t “lock in” until the last minute, and

then insist on the right to change your mind.

Ask for volunteers. You’ll be surprised at who shows up. You’ll be pleasantly

surprised by what they can do.

Find a good “straw boss” or team leader and stay out of his or her way.

Give the team members whatever they ask for — except authority. They’ll generally

ask only for what they really need in the way of resources. If they start asking for

authority, that’s a signal they’re headed toward some kind of power-based

confrontation and that spells trouble. Nip it in the bud!

Concentrate dispersed knowledge. Start and maintain an issues logbook. Let anyone

go anywhere and talk to anyone about anything. Keep the communications barriers

low, widely spaced, and easily hurdled. Initially, if things look chaotic, relax — they

are.

Remember, the task of change management is to bring order to a messy situation, not

pretend that it’s already well organized and disciplined.

3.3 Consequences and Mistakes in Change Management

Managers come from different walks of life, possess various characteristics, and have

their own philosophies regarding how to manage a business and employees. In a broad

sense, there are common mistakes made by managers at different levels and in various

types of businesses. The following are 10 of the most common management mistakes.

1. Putting policies ahead of people. The smaller the organisation, the larger the

mistake this is. Policies are made to be followed, within reason. Some flexibility

with employees, particularly in a small company, is important. An even bigger

mistake is standing behind policies at the expense of losing loyal customers.

Weigh the significance of standing behind your policy in each situation. If it is a

matter of physical safety or security, policies must be upheld. However, in many

other instances, there are reasonable solutions that will not alienate the customer

or create a strained relationship with your employee(s).


2. Lack of communication. In any industry, at any level, communication is key to

being a successful manager. Employees need to know what is expected of them

and when specific projects or tasks need to be completed. Communication needs

to be clear, and any questions that arise need to be answered.

3. Failing to hear what your employees have to say. Managers make the mistake

of listening but not always hearing what their employees are saying. To manage

effectively, you need to understand the needs and concerns of your employees.

4. Not acknowledging that you do not have all the answers. A good manager

does not make the mistake of trying to solve every problem. Seeking help from

individuals with expertise in specific areas is a sign of strength, not weakness. In

addition, a good manager must understand that his or her way is not the only way

to do the job.

5. The glass is always half empty. Managers, who continually focus on the

negatives, without recognizing positive achievements or employee

accomplishments, end up with employees who are not motivated and often have

one foot out the door looking for a more positive work environment.

6. Not accepting responsibility. A common mistake made by managers is to either

delegate blame or simply not accept responsibility for that which happens under

their guidance. Eventually, avoiding responsibility will catch up with a manager and

usually not bode well for his or her future. Being in charge means taking

responsibility for whatever happens.

7. Favoritism. Once a manager has obvious favorites, he or she loses credibility and

the respect of the rest of the team.

8. Just do it. The Nike slogan does not work when employees are trying to gain an

understanding of the process or project. Rather than expecting your team to simply

work blindly on tasks they do not understand, a good manager takes the time to

explain what the project is all about and how the team's work is incorporated into

the plan. Remember, the more the team is invested in a project, the better the

results will be.

9. Too much technology. New breeds of managers are more tech-savvy than they

are comfortable handling and managing people. Embracing technology is a key to

success in the modern office environment, but not at the risk of embracing people

skills. Do not hide behind e-mails and other technology.


10. Never change. In a rapidly changing business environment, not being open to

change can be a major mistake. While you may stick to tried-and-true methods in

some areas, you should consider and weigh the value of change in others. Above

all, be flexible.

Change Management, Process Improvement, New Directions – call it what you wish, but

avoid these common mistakes:

1. Fanfare

"Here we go again." "Another program to weather." "This too shall pass!" Sound

familiar?

All too often organisations announce big changes and new programs with big events and

fanfare, but then very little actually happens. The initial energy and enthusiasm fades,

specific changes are never identified let alone implemented, results aren’t realized,

managers don’t adjust, or maybe something even better comes along leading to a new

"launch" with new fanfare.

The easy part is the announcement. And the fanfare is fun and contagious. But if your

staff isn’t capable of the details, the follow-through, the implementation, then your

program will die and the cynics will reign supreme, ever bolder in their determination to

out-last any new program.

Furthermore, while ostensibly trying to generate energy, the fanfare simply signals big

change and thus, raises anxiety. An impoverished understanding of the program

purpose, path or impact will leave most people uneasy.

2. Controlled Messages

If it tastes like manipulation, smells like manipulation and sounds like manipulation, it is

manipulation! Respect your employees enough to know they will recognize manipulation

when they are the victims of it.

I’ve seen organisations so determined to control messages that they plan every

communication, ration information, create concentric rings of need-to-know circles, and


pretty much eliminate all honest, straightforward, two-way communication. I can’t think of

a better way to widen the Us vs. Them gap within a company. Nor a better way to erode

trust. Never mind the productivity sacrificed to scheming and whispering on one side,

guessing and fuming on the other.

3. Closed Door Planning

Who are you kidding? Do you really think you can mastermind a new way without

involving the people who know the situation best? Trying to "Do It To Them" is both

arrogant and misguided.

4. Extensive Training

Extensive training is a cornerstone of many change programs. But many people return to

their old habits the minute they get back to their desks despite the excitement exhibited

during training. And if the training is filled with new acronyms, complicated techniques,

and secret decoder rings, people will either give up or become distracted by the means

at the expense of the goal.

5. Big Hairy Audacious Change

More likely, Big Hairy Audacious Embarrassment. Part and parcel of the others – the

boisterous fanfare, dramatic unveiling of goal and plan, and massive training – add huge

expectations. Everything big. More "big" than substance. Almost like announcing that

you intend to win Wimbledon when you’ve yet to hit your first tennis ball.

The purpose of change management is to make change successful. The largest

component of many change management programs often involves managing people’s

reactions. Unfortunately, as the above list suggests, many change management efforts

actually create anxiety, the exact opposite of their intentions.

For a better chance of success, consider the flip side of each mistake:

1. Save the fanfare for celebrations of genuine success


Celebrate genuine success, even small steps, in order to build momentum. Success

increases energy, enthusiasm and the appetite for more success. It’s contagious. Start

small and others will line up to join the improvement process.

2. Think in terms of increasing communication rather than controlling it

First, be sincere. Maintaining trust is as important as ever. People can handle a lot if

they trust they are being treated honestly and fairly.

Help people understand the current situation, why improvement is important, and the

reasons for focusing on a particular area. Be clear about desired outcomes; be open to

discussion about methods of achieving those outcomes. Listen to concerns and try to

understand how they see things so that you can help them gain a greater understanding

of the situation and implications. Appeal to their self-interests by clarifying their

contribution to and dependence on company success. Tell employees what you know

and admit what you don’t know. Express the desire to work together to achieve the

desired outcomes.

3. Open the doors

Change is most alarming when it is done to you and the destination is unknown. Be clear

about the destination and then involve employees in determining how to get there.

Reveal the current state fully, float alternatives or provide tools for developing

alternatives, reiterate the goals, particularly the reason they need to care, and let the

improvement opportunities speak for themselves.

Most of the time, you won’t make good choices without the help of your employees. You

certainly can’t succeed without the help of your employees. Partnership is critical when

trying to make substantial improvements.

4. Use Just-In-Time Training

Provide tools and techniques as they are needed so that employees are motivated to

learn and have immediate opportunities to apply what they have learned. Also, appeal to

common principles and familiar thought processes in order to leverage existing

strengths. Cryptic techniques and jargon intimidate. The most successful approaches

are usually the simplest.


5. Leverage Success

You can and should leverage success every step of the way to significant improvement.

1. First of all, target specific, important, but manageable, areas that are ripe for

improvement.

2. Develop a systematic, repeatable approach to improvement. One advantage of

starting small is that you have an opportunity to test drive an approach and tweak it

to match your company’s culture and skill level.

3. Build interest and commitment through a series of small successes.

4. 'Spread' the systematic approach to new projects, primarily to those eager to

participate in the success they have witnessed.

This leveraged approach lets your organisation learn how to change and helps to

develop a culture that seeks opportunities to improve.

Change Management, in capital letters, seems to have become a goal in and of itself,

rather than a means for achieving other goals. People can get so preoccupied with

"Doing Change Management" that they have become distracted from the real goals. Be

clear about your reasons and your destination. Then listen and you will know what to do.

3.4 Innovation Practices to Enhance Change Management Sustainability

Innovation and organisational change play an important role in the business landscape.

Whether it is the formulation of a new product, the introduction of a new service, a

technological invention that changes business processes or a new administrative

practice, innovation and organisational change helps to shape a companies strategy and

structure. Some industries spend a higher percentage of their budget on innovation

strategy than others. This can depend on the structural factors that influence the industry

and the degree of influence changing consumer preferences and tastes can have on a

company.

Industries and companies allocate funds for innovation and organisational change in

response to competitive pressures and the likely duration of the product life cycle. The

software, health and pharmaceutical industry typically invest a higher percentage into

research and development for new product creation. Competitive pressures to develop

new solutions to meet the needs of changing consumer preferences and the intense


nature of the competition forces companies to stay highly responsive to market needs or

risk losing market share to competitors who differentiate their products or offer superior

solutions.

The automobile and airline industry are two industries that spend heavily on

organisational innovation research. This is to facilitate product and process

improvement. Technological advancements that contribute to product development also

play an important part in innovation and organisational change within a companies

manufacturing division. Changes to companies’ production processes to increase

productivity are a prime example of this. As automation replaces manually skilled

workers, companies respond by reducing the workforce or retraining existing employees.

The challenge companies face with innovation and organisational change lies in the

implementation and workplace response to new initiatives. When new technology enters

the scene, companies are forced to evaluate and plan how to best implement it. This

often involves a high degree of anticipatory style planning because a lack of comparison

studies exists. Operating in 'unchartered waters' requires careful consideration of the

likely effects on an organisations strategy, structure and corresponding workplace

implications.

Mandating, communicating and effectively managing innovative organisational change

requires strong leadership to embrace and implement the initiatives. This is best

achieved by unifying company resources and involving personnel who are most affected

by the change. A consultative approach encourages participation in the process and

minimizes the chance that alienation, anxiety and resistance will occur within company

ranks. Having the vision to implement and responding to practical real life feedback are

important factors for the success of organisational change and innovation.

3.5 Managing Risks in the Change Management Process

Risk is inevitable in all change management processes. There may be commonplace

risks that are almost inevitable, for example, the risk that a member of the team is sick

for part of the project. There may be some unlikely but high impact risks, for example,

the risk that the solution could cause the destruction of the organisation.

The good Change Manager will constantly assess the risks and take action as needed.

There are three possible outcomes for each risk:


Take action now to avoid the risk, to reduce its likelihood, or to reduce its impact,

Make contingency plans so that the team is ready to deal with the impact and

mitigate the risk should it occur,

Agree that it is an acceptable business risk to take no action and hope that the risk

does not occur.

The process for managing risks is:

Identify all realistic risks.

Analyse their probability and potential impact.

Decide whether action should be taken now to avoid or reduce the risk and to reduce

the impact if it does occur.

Where appropriate, make plans now so that the organisation is prepared to deal with

the risk should it occur.

Constantly monitor the situation to watch for risks occurring, new risks emerging, or

changes in the assessment of existing risks.

Assessing Risks at the Start of the Project

During the planning of the change management process, the headline risks should be

considered as part of the overall benefit model. At this stage, you will not be dealing with

a full catalogue of risks, consequences and actions. You will focus on the main areas

that affect either the justification of the project or the manner in which it will be carried

out.


http://www.epmbook.com/benefit.htm

http://www.epmbook.com/risk.htm#assessing

http://www.epmbook.com/resources/riskmanagement.ppt

It is unwise to rely solely on your own judgement. You would normally include some

questions about risk when talking to the various participants about the project's scope

and objectives. You might also instigate some specific activities to examine risk, for

example additional interviews, workshops and brainstorming sessions. Where there is a

specialist area involved, you should consult with an appropriate expert, e.g. web-server

sizing, change management, etc.

A good technique for presenting these issues is to use a risk matrix showing the

probability of different headline risks in comparison with their relative impact on the

project's goals.

This focuses attention on the areas where the project plan will need to address key

issues and where specific actions and techniques may be required. Note how this

example suggests that the biggest area of concern tends to be with the "people issues".

The human element of a solution is often the most overlooked aspect.


http://www.epmbook.com/resources/riskmatrix.ppt

The other thing you should do early on in any change process is to decide upon the

procedures and technology for managing risk. The procedures should make it easy for

all participants to submit their thoughts and concerns. Always capture the thought. You

may dismiss it later if appropriate, but you should always consider and assess the input.

3.6 Managing Resistance to Change

When in your efforts to implement strategies and plans you experience resistance, the

most popular assumption is that you have a communication problem and the need is for

greater clarity regarding the vision or change management strategy. Perhaps you have

not defined the problem in dramatic enough terms, built a hot enough fire for the

platform. Maybe you assume that you have not been clear enough about the vision, or

that that the strategy doesn’t go into enough detail.

However when dealing with polarities, the clearer the communication, the greater the

resistance generated. Some people, seen as resisters, are unwilling to sacrifice the

benefits of current ways of doing business and only too clearly see the downside of the

proposed strategy.

It’s not that people don’t understand your interests – it’s that every time you try

explaining them again, you confirm that you don’t understand theirs. And paradoxically,

what you thought was your best solution becomes your greatest problem.

Employee Resistance Case Study

Here’s an example: A global oil company was committed to redesigning its entire

assessment process to better assess and reward managers for promoting a culture that

supported diversity. Two key new measures in the assessment were that:

The manager demonstrates flexibility in working with people different from

themselves, and

The manager shows respect toward those people.

At face value, these appear to be solid diversity-related criteria. However, the solution

was met with resistance from some managers who were willing to be politically incorrect.

They wanted to make sure that they could still be directive and clear when warranted,

and were afraid that everything would become participative and flexible in deference to

diversity.


http://humanresources.about.com/od/changemanagement/a/change_wisdom.htm

http://humanresources.about.com/cs/strategicplanning1/a/strategicplan.htm

They were concerned that too much flexibility was going to lead to inconsistencies and

unclear direction in the company. Finally they worried that it would be unacceptable to

address poor performance as this would be interpreted as lack of respect for diversity.

The polarities at play in this situation are:

Direction and participation,

Clear and flexible, and

Conditional and unconditional respect.

The paradoxical nature of polarities means that over-focusing on one pole will eventually

result in experiencing the downside of that same pole.

Over-focusing on participation, especially to the neglect of direction, results in slow

decision-making and unclear roles.

Over-focusing on direction, especially to the neglect of participation, leads to limited

options and low levels of ownership for decisions made.

Effective management means achieving more of the positive dimensions of direction and

participation, while minimizing their negative aspects. Similarly, over-emphasizing

decentralization to the exclusion of centralization leads to inefficiencies and lack of

integration.

Highlighting quality targets "at any cost" can price you right out of your market. What

Polarity Management provides is tools for recognizing, understanding and managing

these complexities all the way from company strategy level right through to dealing with

daily line issues.

Managing polarities, as well as solving problems, is a key to effective organisational

change. Real Time Strategic Change (RTSC) is a principle-based approach to achieving

rapid, sustainable, organisation-wide change that also helps manage polarities. 'Rapid'

means thinking and acting as if the future were now. 'Sustainable' means that an

organisation is able to adapt and continue to be successful as new realities emerge over

time. The stability and consistency of the RTSC principles provide a solid platform and

a blueprint for an organisation’s change journey. Each of the six RTSC principles

supports organisations in better understanding the nature of key polarities involved in

any change management effort, and how to manage them effectively.


Change is Natural and Good. Reaction to Change is Unpredictable, but Manageable

Managing change means managing people's fear. Change is natural and good, but

people's reaction to change is unpredictable and irrational. It can be managed if done

right.

Nothing is as upsetting to your people as change. Nothing has greater potential to cause

failures, loss of production, or falling quality. Yet nothing is as important to the survival of

your organisation as change. History is full of examples of organisations that failed to

change and that are now extinct. The secret to successfully managing change, from the

perspective of the employees, is definition and understanding.

Resistance to change comes from a fear of the unknown or an expectation of loss. The

front-end of an individual's resistance to change is how they perceive the change. The

back-end is how well they are equipped to deal with the change they expect.

An individual's degree of resistance to change is determined by whether they perceive

the change as good or bad, and how severe they expect the impact of the change to be

on them. Their ultimate acceptance of the change is a function of how much resistance

the person has and the quality of their coping skills and their support system.

Your job as a leader is to address their resistance from both ends to help the individual

reduce it to a minimal, manageable level. Your job is not to bulldoze their resistance so

you can move ahead.

Perception Does Matter

If you move an employee's desk six inches, they may not notice or care. Yet if the

reason you moved it those six inches was to fit in another worker in an adjacent desk,

there may be high resistance to the change. It depends on whether the original

employee feels the hiring of an additional employee is a threat to his job, or perceives

the hiring as bringing in some needed assistance.

A promotion is usually considered a good change. However an employee who

doubts their ability to handle the new job may strongly resist the promotion. They will

give you all kinds of reasons for not wanting the promotion, just not the real one.

You might expect a higher-level employee to be less concerned about being laid off,

because they have savings and investments to support them during a job search.

However, the individual may feel they are over extended and that a job search will be


long and complicated. Conversely, your concern for a low-income employee being

laid off may be unfounded if they have stashed a nest egg in anticipation of the cut.

Your best salesperson may balk at taking on a new, high potential account because

they have an irrational feeling that they don't dress well enough.

If you try and bulldoze this resistance, you will fail. The employee whose desk you had to

move will develop production problems. The top worker who keeps declining the

promotion may quit rather than have to continue making up excuses for turning you

down. And the top salesperson's sales may drop to the point that you stop considering

them for the new account. Instead, you overcome the resistance by defining the change

and by getting mutual understanding.

Definition

On the front end, you need to define the change for the employee in as much detail and

as early as you can. Provide updates as things develop and become clearer. In the

case of the desk that has to be moved, tell the employee what's going on. "We need to

bring in more workers. Our sales have increased by 40% and we can't meet that

demand, even with lots of overtime. To make room for them, we'll have to rearrange

things a little." You could even ask the employees how they think the space should be

rearranged. You don't have to accept their suggestions, but it's a start toward

understanding.

Definition is a two-way street. In addition to defining the problem, you need to get the

employees to define the reasons behind their resistance.

Understanding

Understanding is also a two-way street. You want people to understand what is

changing and why. You also need to understand their reluctance.

You have to help your people understand. They want to know what the change will

be and when it will happen, but they also want to know why. Why is it happening

now? Why can't things stay like they have always been? Why is it happening to me?

It is also important that they understand what is not changing. Not only does this

give them one less thing to stress about, it also gives them an anchor, something to

hold on to as they face the winds of uncertainty and change.


You need to understand their specific fears. What are they concerned about? How

strongly do they feel about it? Do they perceive it as a good or a bad thing?

Manage This Issue

Don't try to rationalize things. Don't waste time wishing people were more predictable.

Instead, focus on opening and maintaining clear channels of communication with your

employees so they understand what is coming and what it means to them. They will

appreciate you for it and will be more productive both before and after the change.


References

The Planning of Change (2nd Edition). Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin (Eds.). Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York: 1969.

Human Problem Solving. Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs: 1972.

Organizations in Action. James D. Thompson. McGraw-Hill, New York: 1967.

The Power of Appreciative Inquiry defines AI as "the study and exploration of what gives life to human systems, at their best" (Whitney and Trosten-Bloom, 2003)

Theodore Kinni, "The Art of Appreciative Inquiry", The Harvard Business School Working Knowledge for Business Leaders Newsletter, September 22, 2003.

"Appreciative Inquiry" http://www.new-paradigm.co.uk/Appreciative.htm. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appreciative_inquiry"

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr.. ISBN 0226476502. OCLC 2185305.

Schön, D. (1974). Beyond the Stable State. Public and private learning in a changing society. Penguin.

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 046506874X. OCLC 223087924.

Clampitt,P. & Williams, M.(2007)Decision Downloading, MIT Sloan Management Review, Jan 1

Rowley, Robin; Joseph Roevens (2007). Organize with chaos. Cirencester: Management Books 2000. ISBN 1852525614. OCLC 170042193.

Senge, Peter; C. Otto Scharmer, Joseph Jaworski, Betty Sue Flowers (March 2004). Presence. Cambridge, MA: SoL. ISBN 0974239011. OCLC 231987197.

Argyris, Chris (Autumn 1982). (PDF)Organizational Dynamics,. http://www.monitor.com/binary-data/MONITOR_ARTICLES/object/92.pdf. Retrieved 2006-12-29.

Tucker, Kate. "The Milan Approach To Family Therapy: A Critique". Psychiatry On-line (Priory Lodge Education Ltd.).

Gibson, E., & Billings, A. (2003). Big Change at Best Buy, Davies-Black, Palo Alto, CA.

Worren, N. A. M.; Ruddle, K.; and K. Moore. 1999. "From Organizational Development to Change Management: The Emergence of a New Profession," The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 35 (3): 273-286.

Beckhard, R. 1969. Organization Development: Strategies and Models, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.


http://www.monitor.com/binary-data/MONITOR_ARTICLES/object/92.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Argyris

http://worldcat.org/oclc/231987197

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Computer_Library_Center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0974239011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/046506874X






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appreciative_inquiry

http://www.new-paradigm.co.uk/Appreciative.htm

Hiatt, J. 2006. ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government and the Community, Learning Center Publications, Loveland, CO.

Kubler-Ross, E. 1970. On Death and Dying, Macmillan Company, England.

LaMarsh, J; Potts, R. 2004. Master Change, Maximize Success, Duncan Baird

Schön, D. A. (1973) Beyond the Stable State. Public and private learning in a changing society, Harmondsworth: Penguin

Beitler, Michael 2006. "Strategic Organizational Change, Second Edition." Practitioner Press International.

Carter, L. & Goldsmith, M. (2001) Best Practices in Organization Development and Change, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Rogers, E. M., (2003). Diffusion Of Innovation, New York: Free Press

Tabrizi, N. B., (2007). Rapid Transformation, Harvard Business School Press.

Nelson, K and Aaron, S (2005). The Change Management Pocket Guide, Change Guides LLC.

Hiatt, J. 2003. Change Management: the people side of change. Learning Center Publications, Loveland, CO.

Greenfield, A 2008. The 5 Forces of Change - A Blueprint for Leading Successful Change, Management Books 2000, England.

Clampitt,P. & Williams, M.(2007)Decision Downloading, MIT Sloan Management Review, Jan 1 Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_management_(people)"

Beckhard, R.F., and R.T. Harris. Organizational Transitions: Managing Complex Change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1987.

Bridges, W. Managing Transitions. Reading, MA: Perseus, 1991.

Bridges, W., and S. Mitchell. "Leading Transition: A New Model for Change." In On Leading Change. F. Hesselbein and R. Johnston, eds. New York: Jossey-Bass, 2002.

Bullock, R.J., and D. Batten. "It's Just a Phase We're Going Through." Group and Organizational Studies 10 (1985): 383–412.

Cameron, Esther, and Mike Green. Making Sense of Change Management: A Complete Guide to the Models, Tools, & Techniques of Organizational Change. Sterling, VA: Kogan Page, 2004.

Carnall, C.A. Managing Change in Organizations. London: Prentice Hall, 1990.

DuBrin, Andrew J. Essentials of Management. 7th ed. Cincinnati: Thomson South-Western, 2004.

Kotter, John P. Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1996.

Lewin, Kurt. Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper and Row, 1951.


Luecke, Richard. Managing Change and Transition. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2003.

Nadler, David, Michael L. Tushman, and Mark B. Nadler. Competing by Design: The Power of Organizational Architecture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Ristino, Robert J. The Agile Manager's Guide to Managing Change. Bristol, VT: Velocity Business Publishing, 2000.

Senge, Peter. The Fifth Discipline. London: Century Business, 1993.

Senge, Peter M., et al. The Dance of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations. New York: Doubleday, 1999.

Sims, Ronald R. Changing the Way We Manage Change. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002.

Stacey, Ralph D. Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity. London: Pitman Publishing, 1993.

Complex Responsive Processes in Organizations: Learning and Knowledge Creation. London: Routledge, 2001.

Williams, Chuck. Management. 3rd ed. Mason, Ohio: Thomson/South-Western, 2005.

Change Management That Pays," McKinsey Quarterly, 2002.

Integrating, People, Process and Technology. by Anton, Petouhoff and Schwartz, Santa Maria, CA: The Anton Press, 2003.

Boston Consulting Group. (2003). Research study. In Integrating, People, Process and Technology. by Anton, Petouhoff and Schwartz, Santa Maria, CA: The Anton Press, 2003.

Ulfelder, Steve. (2001). "Six Ways I.T. Projects Fail - And How You Can Avoid Them." Darwin magazine. http://www.darwinmag.com/read/060101/dirty.html.

Myron, David. (2003). "6 Barriers to CRM Success And How to Overcome Them." DestinationCRM.com, August. http://www.destinationcrm.com/articles/default.asp?articleid=3316.

"Software Disasters Are Often People Problems." Retrieved Tuesday, October 5th, 2004, CNN.com.Research study by Bain Consulting Group.Integrating, People, Process and Technology. by Anton, Petouhoff and Schwartz, Santa Maria, CA: The Anton Press.

ProSci. (2003). "Best Practices in Change Management." AMR Research Report, 2003.

Change Management Case Studies, Hitachi Consulting http://www.hitachiconsulting.com/page.cfm?SID=2&ID=searchresults&searchString=change+management


http://www.hitachiconsulting.com/page.cfm?SID=2&ID=searchresults&searchString=change+management

http://www.hitachiconsulting.com/page.cfm?SID=2&ID=searchresults&searchString=change+management

http://www.darwinmag.com/read/060101/dirty.html

Handy Resources

www.fasset.org.za

www.change-management-toolbook.com

http://www.businessballs.com/

http://www.changedesigns.co.za/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG5na7JD7rE (video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpuHUiy_xog (video)

http://www.bin95.com/change_management_plan.htm

Useful links


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_management_(people)

http://www.organizational-change-management.com

http://www.change-management.com/

http://www.facilitation.co.za/case_studies.html

http://resources.bnet.com/topic/change+management.html


http://www.facilitation.co.za/case_studies.html

http://www.change-management.com/

http://www.organizational-change-management.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_management_(people)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpuHUiy_xog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG5na7JD7rE

http://www.changedesigns.co.za/

http://www.businessballs.com/

http://www.change-management-toolbook.com/

http://www.fasset.org.za/

fasset skills development€¦ · web viewbridges describes three phases of transition: ending,...

Documents