Managing change - Ringing in the changes

It is both inevitable and desirable that successful organisations change and develop in order to continue to remain relevant and competitive in the marketplace. No successful business maintains its success without at least some change.

It is therefore essential that organisations are suitably resourced and skilled to implement such change. The prevalence of ‘change management’ on MBA courses and others is testimony to the difficulty experienced in practice bringing it about. Whether we refer to technology, process, resources or people, there are complexities to be addressed. However, none is quite so consistently challenging as leading people through the change process, and perhaps nothing quite so rewarding as successfully doing so.

A common question is “how do we win people over?” Others ask for help influencing their people to accept and embrace a proposed change. The thinking behind these questions provides a useful starting point. It implies that our people are a relatively passive (or worse, resistant) body that we can mould and shape, en masse, into a better form. Most organisations start with this approach – the kind of words commonly used both by in-house staff and consultants in respect of the ‘people question’ frequently include persuade, educate, influence, train.

In addition, boards are generally seeking to improve processes in a manner that is optimally cost and time effective – not necessarily fast and cheap, but certainly not lengthy and exorbitantly expensive either. Without doubt, the field of coaching psychology in the workplace provides valuable, alternative perspectives and solutions to this question.

The organisation, regardless of its size and complexity, is ultimately formed of separate, autonomous, thinking individuals. Each of them has a unique history and experience, a unique combination of skills, attributes, knowledge and characteristics. Critically, each has his or her own motivators, career aspirations and reason for being there. Change programmes which do not engage at this individual level are, at best, failing to optimise the energy and talent of their people.

That is not to say that change programmes must be uniquely tailored to meet the needs of each and every member of the organisation, but it is to say that each individual’s needs must be addressed. The management writer Stephen Covey, who died last year, left a legacy of sound management advice; two of his tenets are particularly pertinent in this context:

• start with the end in mind; and
• seek first to understand.

An essential component of successful change programmes is a clear end goal or target – what is the purpose of the change and what is it aiming to achieve? This must be sharply and clearly defined so that it can be readily shared and communicated. While this may sound obvious and even trite, executives and managers frequently and confidently assert that their people are quite clear about a particular strategy or programme objective, and yet when asked they will either state uncertainty or an understanding which is at odds with their colleagues.

Communicating the end goal or target is not as simple as it appears; management teams themselves must begin by being focused, explicit and aligned in their understanding of what the end state is, what it will look like and what purpose it will serve. They must check that they share a common understanding. Even at this early stage conflicting agendas, differing perspectives, and different personalities and management styles can have a negative impact on this.

Defining the goal state then enables managers to chart the ‘journey’: what is the change? What will it look and feel like when it has been achieved? What will be different? What will the journey itself look and feel like?

Once this framework is in place it is easier to take heed of the other Covey ‘habit’ referred to earlier.

Many change initiatives fail to achieve their initial objectives due to:

• an initial lack of clarity about the change itself;
• inadequate communication;
• poor engagement of the people expected to actually create the change; and
• ineffective leadership.

Approaching the ‘people question’ from an understanding of them as autonomous, thinking individuals enables us to position the exercise as one of engagement: that means sharing information regarding the change itself, and then listening and consulting in order to enhance the change process with differing knowledge and perspectives. A genuinely open and engaged approach moves us away from the ‘old days’ of manipulation wherein change managers were taught to foster within staff a sense that they had been consulted, as opposed to them genuinely being so.

That initial engagement needs to involve:

• a clear story or narrative about what is happening and why it is happening;
• information about what the journey will look and feel like both for the team and the individual;
• a clear understanding of what to expect and what will be expected of each person; and
• the defined means of support, including development and training, through the change programme.

Setting the scene in this way through clear and explicit communication paves the way for the communication to come back the other way. Given what is proposed, where do your people stand? How do they feel about it? What do they think about it?

What are their views about aspects of the change, what new angles do they contribute that haven’t been considered? What are their concerns? What are their hopes? Genuinely listening to this information is a critical step in effective change programmes – if you pride yourself on having good people in your organisation then it makes sense that they are likely to have views and ideas you need to know about. What opportunity is there for them to shape the direction of the change and the journey itself?

Given that we are all different, it is to be expected that some people will resist a proposed change. Again, the ‘old wisdom’ would have it that this is merely an unwelcome obstacle to be overcome. Actually, people are entitled to disagree or to have an alternative view. If we engage with that with integrity and openness we are more likely to find an acceptable way forward.

We must start with understanding – why is this person resisting this? They may simply consider that an alternative direction is preferable, but in most cases resistance is due to anxiety about what the change entails for them – they may be concerned about the ‘unknown’ nature of the new process or role for example, or anxious that they won’t be able to do the new work sufficiently well, or unhappy that they will have to stop working in the comfortable ‘safe’ way they currently know. In most cases the objection is an emotional one, and yet in most cases change managers will counter this with information – data and facts to justify the new way. This often results in a kind of ‘stand off’ where people stop communicating, managers get increasingly directive, and individuals increasingly pay lip service but are not really engaging.

What to do? A classic coaching approach is essential here – that is, to start where they are. If that resistance is emotional in nature it must be responded to accordingly. An appeal to logic in such situations will not be effective. Once your people understand the nature of the change, the rationale and purpose behind it, the change ‘journey’, milestones and timeframes, and critically, you have verified that that is a common and shared understanding, you are then ready to engage each individual. That recognises each person will have a different perspective on the situation, and will interpret the desirability of it and their willingness to accept and run with it through their own ‘filters’– for example “what does this mean to me?”; “how will this affect me?”; and “what’s it in it for me?”.

Too frequently, change programmes are implemented without this level of engagement and without helping people work out how the change aligns with their own interests and motivators. A powerful means of ‘anchoring’ both is to make explicit the revised organisational goals and objectives, and to align them with the personal and career aspirations of the individual.

If I am able to understand how taking an active and constructive part in this change aligns with my own career and personal agenda and goals, I will be significantly more motivated to do so – it will have clarity and meaning. If I fail to understand why my engagement with a potentially uncomfortable and unwelcome change will benefit me I am unlikely to even comply, let alone embrace it. The cost of change places financial managers and executives at the sharp end of change initiatives. Cost effectiveness is critical as is appropriate investment – under-spending and failing to achieve the desired change is more expensive than spending adequately in the first place. It also makes subsequent change efforts much more difficult and expensive to achieve as staff become increasingly disaffected.

This emphasises the need for very clear direction and planning, and shared understanding at the very outset. Should you throw money at staff to accept change in the form of pay rises and bonuses? The answer is a clear “no”. Numerous studies have consistently found that bonuses and pay rises do not increase performance or loyalty – and in some cases they even diminish it. Money is important to the extent that people perceive that they are fairly and equitably paid – if they do not perceive this to be the case, the issue of money will remain of paramount importance. Once addressed however, the subject of money fails to become a motivator for most people.

Understanding what drives and motivates your people as individuals – as line managers should do – provides you with the best means of providing suitable ‘rewards’. Whether that is a need for achievement, challenge, recognition, teamwork, a sense of purpose and meaning, or a number of other drivers, ensuring that line managers enable individuals to have these needs met will significantly enhance engagement and buy-in. This should of course be the de facto situation within your organisation if, as we say, we truly value our people. But of course that requires your line managers to have developed sound people management skills – and that is another subject entirely.

• Managing change - Ringing in the changes
  Finance & Management Magazine, October 2013, p.11-13

The ICAEW Library & Information Service provides full text access to leading business, finance and management journals. Further reading on managing change successfully and winning staff over is available through the articles below.