Organisational change efforts fail more often than they succeed — and rarely because of poor strategy

In a recent newsletter published by the American Society for Training and development, the following article appeared;

Forbes contributor Carol Kinsey Goman, a self-described “professional change agent” hired to help leaders communicate more effectively, shares these five lessons from her experience coaching business professionals.

  1. People matter more than strategy. “Organisational change efforts fail more often than they succeed — and rarely because of poor strategy,” Goman says. “Rather, it’s almost always a ‘people’ issue.”
  2. Emotion has more impact than logic. Both have their place, she explains, but “employees need to understand the marketplace realities that are the driving forces of change. They need to know the consequences of not changing.” They also need to know how these changes will or will not affect their duties, their job security, and if they will need to learn new skill sets.
  3. Behavior is more persuasive than words. “If the stated message is ‘Let’s all collaborate!’ and employees see that senior leadership doesn’t work well together, the collaboration message hasn’t a chance,” Goman says.
  4. Informal networks are more influential than formal communication channels. While formal approaches such as authentic speeches from senior leaders, well-researched articles in newsletters, and first-line supervisors who are excellent communicators are integral and helpful, “none of them deals with the complex web of social interactions and informal networks that are the conduit for up to 70 percent of all organisation information,” Goman explains.
  5. And finally, nonverbal communication is more powerful than verbal communication. “The key to successful change communication may be found in the kinds of signals ordinarily overlooked, especially tone of voice and body language,” she says.

The reason I find this article particularly refreshing is that in many organisations the focus and energy is placed on developing the strategy and the process of transition. Everyone knows the importance of engaging the people and taking them with you, but unfortunately there are no shortcuts. Managers need to invest a serious amount of time in:

  • Building open honest relationships with their  people
  • Listening from the heart – by that I mean understanding the true impact of the changes on each individual
  • Communicating using both the formal and informal channels of communication, even if there is nothing new, people like to be reassured that things are not happening without their knowledge
  • Thinking before speaking, how will their words be understood by their people.
  • Avoiding use of management speak and waffle
  • Checking their personal engagement with the changes. If the managers are not truly engaged them don’t attempt to engage others. Remember your people are a reflection of you!
  • Displaying the positive behaviours they wish to see in others
  • Understanding the team dynamics, informal networks and communication channels and knowing who the influencers are within the team
  • Keeping people focused on the Vision, Planning and Detail and away from the Problem and Drama

In summary, managers need to be “Up close and personal” with their people. Spend time getting to know them as individuals, their issues, worries, challenges, likes, dislikes, preferences and motivators.

One of the challenges facing managers is that most of the popular management models in use today were developed in an age where change was at a much slower pace and rarely as complex as today. The old management models focused more on process, not people. There are new models emerging based on Neuro-scientific evidence and already producing measurable results. Human Potentials leadership or sometimes referred to as Attentional or Interior models has emerged as a result of the interest in Emotional Intelligence[1] and leaders aspiring to become “Level Five” leaders[2] which has humility and determination at the heart. It is important that managers learn how to tune in more and Human Potential models are the answer.

Whilst Human Potentials leadership is still relatively new, there is already evidence available of the validity of such models in the workplace. Transport for London[3] conducted an internal review in 2003 and found that mental health was one of the top two issues affecting company employees. TFL offered staff a six week group stress reduction workshop, which was open to any of the 20,000 employees who met the referral criteria.

The workshop programme, included psycho-educational and cognitive behavioural therapy alongside the teaching of Mindfulness techniques.

The outcomes:

  • Number of days off for stress and anxiety, amongst the employees attending fell by 71%
  • Absences for all conditions dropped by 50%
  • 80% reported improvements in their relationships
  • 79% improvements in their ability to relax
  • 64% improvements in sleep patterns
  • 53% improvements in happiness at work

The common thread of all of Human Potential models such as Authentic Leadership and Resonant Leadership is Mindfulness, which “spontaneously arises out of a Being mode when we learn to pay attention, on purpose, in the present moment, without judgement, to things as they actually are. It is the ability to see the world as it is, not as we expect it to be or want it to be or fear it might become.” (Williams & Penman 2011)[4]

Why should organisations be taking note of these new approaches? Look out for the answers in our next blog.


[1] Daniel Goleman
[2] Good to Great – Jim Collins
[3] The business case for mindfulness in the workplace. Juliet Adams, Mindfulnet.org January 2012.
[4] Mindfulness – a practical guide to finding peace in a frantic world – Williams & Penman

LinkedInShare

When your people ‘buy-in’ to transformation, how much change are you left with?

The freedom to choose.  It’s what a democracy is based on.  This may be quite a high brow and remote place to start the discussion around engaging staff in change but it seems to be such a fundamental need in most people, the idea of freedom, that it is interesting to see how people can sabotage an idea. Just because they did not choose it.           

Would this apply to change?  Maybe it’s an idea that is worth discussing.  This idea of Generation X and Generation Y suggests each generation are looking for something different.  The poor Y’s may have also wanted what we believe is important to Generation X, but they just didn’t have the choice.  The boundaries were firmly fixed and no-one could think of life beyond those boundaries.  It wasn’t up for negotiation.  To think outside the box was not an option.  However, those days have changed.  The directing ‘tell and do’ cultures of organisations have not always proved to be successful.  You might think of Alan Sugar as a contradiction to that, but I imagine he is a great advocate in seeking the best ideas from those around him in order to maintain the success of his multi million pound empire. 

We now articulate what we have all thought all along.  If people feel empowered, recognised, their ideas valued, their voice heard, things could be different.  Even Stephen Covey has added an 8th habit ‘find your voice and inspire others to find theirs’.

Of course there is a balance to be had.  We cannot empower people indefinitely, without limits.  Can we?  The Senior Executives of an organisation will use their expertise, their strategic approach, their knowledge of the market forces, their long term view to decide what the strategy of an organisation needs to be.  The ‘Mission’ of an organisation, its reason for being will provide the right direction, the guiding light of where the organisation should be going.  Once the strategy has been decided, it’s at that point we could potentially miss a trick.

Once the strategy has been decided, very often organisations tell everyone how to achieve it.  Really?  Could we not be more transformational and empowering at this stage?  If we tell everyone how to achieve the strategy, are we not applying a broad brush approach to the whole of the business.  As we know there are many unique, different and incomparable aspects to an organisation.  Is every bank the same on a high street?  Is every department the same in a building?  Is each ship the same in a cruise line company?  Is every shop the same in a retail organisation?  They may look the same.  Even be the same square footage.  But as we know as soon as we walk in, they can feel very different.  The history, legacy, culture, manager and people are all very different.  How can someone remotely tell these people how to achieve the strategy?  Those closest to the opportunity, know how to achieve it.  Of course guidance and support must and need to be offered.  But as Stephen Covey identifies the people’s voice must be heard.  Perhaps in this difficult climate, when organisations feel their most nervous, they could take their bravest step, and truly trust people.  By asking people the question ‘How can we achieve our goals?  Please tell us’, they might achieve it easier than they thought.  People might just ‘buy in’ to change, when they have the freedom to choose it, when they own it.  Ideally we want every person to take full responsibility.  Only then will people feel part of the strategy or vision, rather than something that is done to them.  Maybe it you will hear less of what ‘they’ are doing, but what ‘we’ are doing.

Admittedly by asking the question above, we may hear too many answers.  This is where the different levels of management come into play, to be empowered to rise to the challenge, to listen, encourage discussion and take the best ideas forward through constructive consensus.  The Manager needs to be encouraged to be the best they can be, encouraged to feel confident.  Although they maybe be more aware of budgetary restrictions and timelines, maybe this information can also be disclosed to their teams, so they truly understand the nature of the challenges ahead.

Earlier I asked the question, can we empower people indefinitely without limits?  Maybe we can.  This is already being done by the more forward thinking companies.  One organisation even allows their people to choose how much they work and how many holidays they can take.  Really.  There are some zero tolerance behaviours and full accountability is expected.  However, by truly giving the freedom to choose, also means that the people choose their outcome.  Guess which outcome they choose?

LinkedInShare