I have been thinking about change management and why it fails 50% of the time.
Imagine a yacht sailing around the world. Whilst they may experience many days of great sailing the crew knows that there will be big storms and windless days to deal with. However as a team they have the shared vision of the journey and destination. They know there will be changes to the course but even during difficult times they will work hard to navigate a safe course.
This analogy isn’t much different to how a business should operate. Leaders and employees alike should have a clear vision for the business. They should also know that change will happen and sometimes the change will be harsh. However if they all pull together during the tough times, they know they will continue to succeed.
But how many act like this?
In the face of tough conditions research has shown that, globally, many businesses are too slow to react to change or, worse, deny the need to do so. The rate of change in businesses is only marginally faster than the rate of change in politics. Social change is capable of faster change than businesses. I guess you only need to look at technological disruption and how readily politics, business and society have adapted for a demonstration of this.
CEO’s and their senior leadership teams make decisions with all the best intentions but unfortunately they often result in little improvement. The results can be soul destroying. Many great companies, large and small, that have or had great products, great people, and the potential to do more, fall victim to a changing environment. Kodak is a classic example when they failed to embrace the digital era.
Decisions on what information to take notice of, and what, if any, action to take, are commonly made by the senior ranks of a company. Input from lower levels of the business is not often sought. In fact employees at the lower levels of the business can be unaware that changes are afoot until a formal announcement is made. It is often at the time of preparing the formal announcement that the change management processes are traditionally instigated.
Imagine what this would look like for our captain and the yacht.
A forecast comes in form the bureau of meteorology for severe stormy weather in the next 48 hours. The captain, without speaking to any one, decides not to alter the course. He puts together his change management plan and then announces it to the crew.
The crew become anxious about the captain’s decision and they start to fear for their safety. They don’t believe that the captain made the right decision and come up with different ideas among themselves. Motivation and energy decrease as the crew grapple with the captain’s decision.
At the height of the storm the captain issues a May Day however it is too late to save the yacht. All the crew survive and are plucked out of the water by rescue services.
You could say that the change management process failed because the crew didn’t support the captain’s the decision and this is why the yacht sunk. You might think that the crew’s anxiety caused fatal mistakes to be made which distracted them from doing what they were supposed to do.
However did the process have a chance?
The fate of the yacht wasn’t because the change management process was ineffective. It was set in the decision of the captain. By only harnessing one brain rather than the brains of many, the captain limited his ability to make the right decision.
What would have happened if the change management plan for this yacht started as soon as the forecast was issued?
Let’s look at how this might play out.
The captain receives the forecast and puts in place the change management plan. He immediately calls a meeting with the crew. Whilst he may have some ideas on what actions to take, he seeks input from everyone before making a decision. He asks a range of set questions such as do they stay the course, or sail north/ south/ east/west to avoid it? What are the possible benefits and consequences of each suggestion? What are the risks? What would they need to do differently to implement? No idea or option is judged and a decision is only made once all possible ideas have been put on the table for consideration. They map out the new course and set up strategies to mitigate possible scenarios of problems. They then put the plan in action.
Neuroscientists have found that when conversations encourage people to have input and share their ideas without judgement, it activates brain’s prefrontal cortex where creativity and forward planning occur. Using this part of the brain enables people to see uncertainty and volatility as challenging rather than threatening Apple is an example of an organisation that has a culture which encourages people to use their prefrontal cortex. Employees don’t fear change, they create it.
Traditional change management processes tend to trigger people’s protective behaviours. They feel threatened and fearful about their jobs, their colleagues, and the future of the business. They can become anxious and withdrawn or aggressive and outspoken. A lot of effort is needed to move these people into more positive thinking.
The benefit of starting the change management process before any decision is made is that it encourages the generation of ideas and concepts that may not have been thought of previously. It creates a safe environment for all participants to be creative without fear of judgement. It allows these ideas to be challenged and questioned without people feeling persecuted. It allows the best solution to be discovered.
I feel that traditional change management processes are fraught with resistance and skepticism because they start too late. If everyone has been involved right from the start in the decision making process, the level of acceptance and support for the new direction is significantly increased. The decisions are likely to be better and the success of the change higher.
How would this work practically? Here are 5 principles
- Firstly working with key representatives from across the business and all levels, the change management process would qualify and quantify a shared understanding of where the business stands today and what the future will look like.
- It would then seek the input of all participants of what is possible, building and feeding on ideas and suggestions put on the table.
- The decision to act would be created from a shared understanding on what needs to happen in order to create the new future
- The process moves to Identify opportunities and potential barriers and map out the process of change
- At the end of the process the facilitator seeks the commitments from participants on actions and responsibilities.
You can see that change management is now a process of engaging in the decision making. Seeking the thoughts and opinions of many rather than a chosen few will ultimately result in better decisions. It could also result in faster adaptation to the threats and opportunities the business faces.
I suggest that change management plans focus on engaging the positive parts of the brain and minimising the protective parts of the brain. I advocate for changing change management for ground breaking results.
If you would like to talk more about this concept please contact me.
