Allen, congrats on a topic that never seems to lose it’s currency. Sometimes I like to think about the inevitability of the people management task that all of us face when undertake even the smallest change, as analogous to the need to get innoculated before we depart for foreign travel. If only it was that simple!

Still the analogy may be a useful way to think about the checklist (shots?) a manager needs to prepare for themselves before pushing the ‘Easy’ button:

1. Who are the key stakeholders to be affected by the planned changed or whose reaction can impact the success of the change outcome?
2. How do I get them ‘onside’?
-Inform them of the coming change?
-Surprise them with the change?
3. Are some of the stakeholders capable of making a positive difference on the planned outcome?
-Articulate clearly the goals of the change and how success will be measured
-Should I ask for their help?
-Offer briefing and training?
4. What are the components of change that can be left flexible perhaps even at the discretion of the stakeholder vs. what needs to consistent to achieve success?
-What parts of this am I prepared to ‘own’ i.e. be accountable for?
-What components can I ask stakeholders to ‘own’?
-How do we develop a blended perspective of measuring a successful outcome?

We’ve all seen the receipes for change management and we know they work but they are written from the perspective of the process expert and rarely from the view point of the manager who is after all most often a non-expert.

By Alcide DeGagn on 2010/10/22

I picked up on your comment that the change should have been driven top-down by senior management to achieve buy-in all the way down the chain.  Buy-in occurs when the people involved in doing the work actually are involved in the decisions about the change process, not when it is forced down the chain.  Otherwise, how can anyone know what is really needed?  It reminds me of a quote I recently saw, similar to, “If you plan to make a better mousetrap, you better make sure there are mice out there.”  Concerning attending to the technical and the people elements, I like to use a basic framework/visual to start the discussion with clients since the importance of having this equilibrium is not always obvious.

By Diane Thompson on 2010/10/22

Thanks for your article Allen. I agree with Diane about the importance of the people being involved in the change. When I hear the words “buy-in” it is a red flag that something is wrong already.

By Bert Zethof on 2010/10/23

Thanks for the comments, all is not lost for this organization. There is much that can be done after the fact to reinforce the change that happened and for which there is no going back, such as auditing compliance with the new processes, identifying roots of resistance and developing action plans to manage the resistance, listening to employees and gathering their feedback, and celebrating some of their successes. Or alternatively, wait them out in the hope that in six months all will be forgotten. I think not, best they tackle the problem head on and not wait.

By Allen Black on 2010/10/25

Allen, I would definitely try to have them look at their history, why they exist, the successes that brought them to where they are now and the anticipated impact(s) of the change.  In one project, we created a history wall with a time line so individuals could spontaneously over a period of a week record all they remembered about what made them great, leading to the current state.  People brought in numerous records, pictures and cards to put on the history wall at the appropriate month/year. By taking the time to share their stories, they were able to honor and celebrate this shared history, allowing them to move to the next phase - shared responsibility for a future that would look different.

I actually don’t like the word “resistance” as it implies some intention to “resist” which may or may not be present, and then we make judgments - that people are “resisting.”  Change is something that we, as humans, really do not like.  It is to be expected that something new will take some adjustment, including how people see themselves fitting into the new future.  This all needs to be accounted for in the transition phase.

By Diane Thompson on 2010/10/25

One of the aspects to ‘push-back’ or ‘resistance’ which always troubles me is the assumption that this is a blind force with no reason or rationale behind it—or at least no valid and useful rationale.

If is very easy to see push back as blind resistance. But at the core of pushback are usually very important learnings about how things are really being done and about ways in which—under the new systems—people are being deprived of things that are important to them. Or people are at risk of being unsuccessful in the changed environment.

It is very helpful to dig down into the resistance in a respectful manner. Assume that that the push back is coming from a valid and respect-worthy place. Rename the resistance as identification of issues that need to be addressed to make the change work, and work with resisters to address concerns.

At the same time, most successful managers have to face the fact that some resisters are now (with the change) the wrong person in the wrong place. I recently discussed with an outstanding manager how he had dealt with a major change in his group. He had worked hard to get everyone on side and had been largely successful where other managers had failed. And at the end of the day, he had let some staff go. Kudos to this manager who recognized that it harms the group to keep such people, and it harms the people who cannot succeed in the new environment not to state clearly that the environment no longer works for them and so they must move on.

By Ellen Godfrey on 2010/10/26

We shouldn’t shy away from calling a spade a spade - it is resistance and has to be dealt with, albeit in respectful, honest ways.
My point is that it cannot be ignored and expect it to go away on its own.And, yes, listening and understanding the concerns of those impacted is paramount.

By Allen Black on 2010/10/26

I like Ellen’s suggestion of digging deeper about what tends to get labeled as resistance.  Sometimes people who have suggestions or new ideas, and who speak up, are viewed to be resisting and can be vulnerable as a result.  We, in fact, use positive deviance in organizations to look at the ways that some people manage to get things done when others can’t.  So, I would carefully deconstruct what appears to be resistance. In those unfortunate, sometimes inevitable, situations where someone is in the wrong place, a full set of supports must be in place for the individual in transition.  Competent, caring managers do all of the above.

By Diane Thompson on 2010/10/27

Allen, a salutory tale, to say the least and well put by you. Here is another way of looking at the same issue.

In working on similar projects I have distilled my approach to three elements, strategy, quality (processes) and communication.  There must be a strategy, a goal, a purpose for the intended changes.  This, among other things, focuses thinking and has the additional benefit of achieving “buy-in”. 

When a strategy, or goal, is established, the process can now be changed - according to established quality management guidelines.  This should involve all internal and external customer/supplier relationships. I find that change is much more difficult to achieve if process management is not well understood.

Often it is the communication step where things go off the rails.  It is not really a step, it should occur throughout the project.  The strategy, or goal, needs to be well understood, and spoken frequently. Requirements need to defined (or at least stated) for all customer/supplier relationships, conversations with staff and management need to be held (as others have pointed out).

This I use as both a fundamental strategy and a checklist.  A kind of a lens through which I view a project to see if anything has been missed.

By Phil Hawkins on 2010/11/06

Very good points, it seems to me that developing a strategy also depends on when the change management part of the project or initiative is introduced. That could come anytime at three junctures. At the same time the technical side of the project starts, at some point when the project is underway, or as an afterthought when the technical side is complete. The latter, of course, is the least desirable.
Your strategy - assessment of change readiness, communications plan, way to deal with resistance, plan to engage employees, etc, then is shaped by this. The messages one sends out will vary accordingly.
I think this is the real test of change management. knowing how to tailor the strategy when faced with any of these three possibilities.

By Allen Black on 2010/11/06

Allen,  I couldn’t agree more with your last message concerning knowing how to tailor the change management strategy as required. It reminded me of an experience I had at IBM.  I was Manager of Business Process Quality (BPQ) for the IBM Canada Lab.  As such I would advise in projects and give training, including change management.

I noticed over the years that my material became less and less specific, until some were pretty much blank pages with headings on top.

I had not thought too much of it until I read your last entry. I had realised that the more forms and procedures are prescriptive then the more chance there was that they would not fit a given project circumstance.

So I gradually shifted my approach to showing people what to look for and presenting methods they could use, as required.

By Phil Hawkins on 2010/11/12