Why do many change efforts fail to deliver on anticipated benefits? Is it because;
- the idea or change itself has been poorly thought through? Rarely.
- of insufficient budget? Rarely.
- of insufficient resources? Rarely.
- the project team is unskilled, or lacks the project management discipline? Rarely.
With more than 25 years involvement in almost all types of change programme we see overwhelming evidence of ONE consistent reason for a change to fail to deliver anticipated value or ourcomes;
A lack of buy-in from those impacted by (or able to impact the results of) the change.
Without buy-in the very best ideas lose 'oxygen'. People are apathetic to the change or, at worst, ignore or sabotage it. We have seen numerous examples where people are engaged in the change / new order because they have to be, not because they want to be. This can result in people appearing to be engaged but biding their time until a better offer comes along. When it does there is often a slow and painful exodus of top talent - people you want (and need) to keep jump ship.
So how can this be avoided? Should the company roll out the 'change adoption curve' and run mini sessions to explain the change and how they might be feeling as a result? Perhaps. It is certainly better than just crossing-your-fingers.
Where we have seen well-managed change initiatives we have seen the following 'best practices';
- A Change Leader (not a project manager) that keeps the change on their agenda for the long-haul. They mention it frequently. It is in their calendar. It is on their agenda for every meeting. They ask others about it. They do not move on to other topics or initiatives until well-after the change has been embedded.
- There are sustained communication messages, at all levels across the business, that do two things;
- They communicate the NEED for the change...the burning platform...a PUSH message, often painting a negative picture of staying as they are.
- They communicate a VISION for the change...a positive and desired future state, one that describes what people will be doing more of, or less of. It is translated into a language that resonates for all functions and levels. It is repeated often...with passion...many, many, many times.
- The company keeps the change on the agenda with planned / periodic 'events'. These are varied, engage the masses, they might be managed by advocates in the functions. These are held during; 'breakfast sessions', 'lunch-and-learns', 'skip-level meetings', competitions, Interview the CEO sessions, etc.
- The company looks at all of the 'systems & structures' that drive behaviour and explores whether these are the types of behaviour required in the new 'future-state'. If they are not they are adjusted to ensure they drive the desired behaviour. Typically this will involve a LOT of work to explore and realign the following;
- Reward and recognition
- Compensation and benefits
- Recruitment, on-boarding and induction
- Training and Development
- Succession planning and promotion
- Measurements and metrics
- Organisational structure, levels and reporting lines
- IT infrastructure
- Communication methods and frequency.
The following formula really does make a huge impact on the way a successful change should be handled;
Results = Solution x Engagement
Most organisations invest heavily (cost and resource) in the 'solution' part of the equation, but often very little in the 'engagement' part. Ten x zero = zero! Far better to have a good solution and a lot of engagement rather than the best solution and little engagement.
We have a model, method and toolkit to help organisations better balance the above equation. We do not focus on project-management skills, but heavily on how to engage and align the PEOPLE to the project.
If you would like a sample of the toolkit please contact us.