The ONE Key to Overcoming 70% Failure Rate in Managing Change
Posted by Todd VanNest on Tue, Oct 05, 2010
Okay…we know that humans are fallible and that organizational change can exacerbate our greatest weaknesses (e.g., fear of the unknown, resistance in the face of sacrificing control, the lack of discipline required to see a complex change through, and generally spitting-up-upon any change that we feel is “forced upon us”). However, the “science” and consultant advice that make up the process of Organizational Change Management can move change leaders toward remedies for the human condition that have relatively little in the form of returns. The proposition presented by these gurus and their processes is basically this:
“Spend innumerable hours selling in a particular change model, demand weeks of training and compliance with one process (i.e., one language--one acceptable, scripted path to executing the change), and put in place several “communication” steps to find confirmatory evidence that things are on track---THEN many ways to discount anomalies and challenges so that any failure to achieve planned results can be rationalized.”
This particular form of folly leads many authors to re-state “the horror” statistic linked to organizational change:
*For all the process, tools, training, and dollars spent trying to mitigate the influence of these forms of human fallibility, the overall failure rate with organizational change remains at about 70% (Kotter, 1995 and 2009; McKinsey, 2009).
The authors of all of the articles citing the Kotter and McKinsey research tend to fall into one of two categories: those who think they know mousetraps (e.g., OCM) better than others; and those who use the statistic to rail on the idiocy of man taking on change to begin with (we are fatally flawed). These prospects are wholly unsatisfying. In contrast, our research has revealed that there is something big missing from this guidance!
*It (application of OCM) drives a dramatic and costly MIS-allocation of energy—placing great focus on process control and compliance in lieu of fostering a responsive and dynamic influence that is required to build trust and accelerate transformation.
Therefore, the REAL “Human Factor” investment that pays off in change is LEADERSHIP. Note that there is a monumental difference between selling management tools to people who are leaders in the change process and fostering true leadership. In change, like more general settings, there is a form of leadership that is transformational and a form that is transactional (more like “management”).
Transformational leadership provides break-through results—deepening understanding and commitment, accelerating change, and delivering more of the desired results. It does this by enabling the following shifts:
__From INTEGRITY as “we did what we said in our plan” to “you’ve come to know my values and have seen the courage of my convictions to stick to them;”
__From TRUST as “if you just ride out the process with us, it will all feel better,” to “I am committed to a process of listening to all of our stakeholders;” and
__From PACE being defined by the speed that is defined by the least common denominator (the last person finally believes in the “process” they are sold), to the acceleration effect that occurs when stakeholders believe in the process owners.
So, what exactly does this higher-paying investment look like?
*Layering in sufficient and dedicated resources so that identified change leaders focus their contributions on the “heavy lifting” that can only be done through leadership—avoiding the OCM trap of becoming nothing more than a Super Process Administrator;
*Placing leadership activities highlighted in constructive change management approaches clearly out in front of the “management” activities (e.g., building trust before expecting it; listening before telling; adapting before demanding compliance by others); and
*Putting several mechanisms in place to ensure that leaders are:
A__Listening to and engaging stakeholders (completely and authentically—not just in the transactional manner of stepping through the prescribed change process); and
B__Modeling the values outlined as Operating Principals in their Project Charter and stated Organization Values.
This guidance is just a start, but these small shifts in focus, and a related re-allocation of energy in even the most troubled of change projects have a significant impact on both project completion and the sustainability (“stickability”) of change.
You can learn more about this re-dedication to LEADERSHIP AS THE CRITICAL HUMAN ELEMENT IN CHANGE MANAGEMENT by previewing our forthcoming book: The Last Word on Change. Visit us at:
http://www.lastwordonchange.com/our-new-book-on-change-management
