Change management in-a-box

I have to admit it, I love models – even if they simplify complex matters and put people into linear boxes. It helps me navigate the changes I’m involved in, and reflect on those issues that we might forget in our eager to introduce new ways to the organisation.

So, here’s a quick tour de force of the different “box-models” I’ve come across that describes the transitional process of introducing change:

3 Box:
Unfreeze -> Freeze -> Refreeze (Lewin)
Prepare -> Execute -> Sustain (Cohen)

4 Box:
Dissatisfaction -> Vision -> process -> Cost (Beer)
Discovery -> Dream -> Design -> Sustain (Srivastava)

5 Box:
Awareness -> Desire -> Knowledge -> Ability -> Reinforcement (Prosci)
Denial -> Anger -> Bargaining -> Depression -> Acceptance (KublerRoss)

7 Box:
Need for change -> Shared vision -> Mobilizing commitment -> Aligning structure -> Leadership -> Monitoring results -> Making change last (CAP model)

8 Box:
Increase urgency -> Bulid the guiding team -> Get vision right -> Communicate for buy-in -> Empower action -> Create short-term wins -> Don’t let up -> Make change stick (Kotter)

10 Box:
Analyze organisation and need for change -> Shared vision -> Separate from the past -> Create sense of urgency -> Support strong leader role -> line up political sponsorship -> craft implementation plan -> develop enabling structures -> communicate, involve and be honest -> reinforce and institutionalize (Todd Jick)

To me, the red thread is clear – and what really separate great change practitioners from others is their ability to transform “boxes” to people and results.

Project management vs. Change management

The interfaces between project management and change management overlap, and they are certainly interdependent when it comes to successfully delivering value by supporting the strategic initiatives of the business.

To put it roughly the project management team handles the technical and administrative side of the project, whereas the change management team handles the people side of the project.

Project management is key when it comes to initiating, planning, executing and monitoring the projects activities and deliverables. They ensure a strong solution design backed up with detailed project plans. 

Change management prepares the organization for the project impact, manages the transition from how we do things today to how they will be done tomorrow – and puts special efforts into reinforcing and anchoring the change into the everyday work and life of the organization.

Key tools in project management are the project charter, business case, budget estimations, work breakdown structure, resource allocations, scheduling and tracking. Key tools in change management are organizational assessments, stakeholder mapping and interventions, communication and coaching plans, training programs, sponsorship road maps and reinforcement activities.

Successful projects and project managers integrate the two approaches, and makes sure to give equal attention to both the technical and the people side of the project. Unfortunately, all to often change management initiatives are late add-on’s if – or when – the project runs into trouble.

Do yourself a favor and invite change managers – communicators, HR professionals, Trainers, stakeholder managers etc. – to the table early in the project. It will be a well spent investment, that will help the project finish on target, time and budget.

As I see it, change management is the insurance policy of projects with a high people factor. And most projects need it.

Change put simply

Although change management actually is rocket science, it has often surprised me who – at the end of the day – actually pulls it of and delivers a successful change project from a-z.

It turns out that the most successful change managers I’ve met, all are very capable – and likable – people with a seamless ability to communicate and interact with people, no matter where or at which level in the organization they are. They are genuinely curious and interested in other people’s views and opinions, believe in the overall vision and are loyal to the company – and most importantly, they believe that the change they are pioneering will make tomorrow better than today.

They don’t lead – people follow.

I guess the change management task can be boiled down to figuring out:

• Why change is needed
• What needs to be changed
• Who needs to be involved
• What role must/should I play

Once that is figured out – the task is to help others do the same.

Are you being followed?

Two paths of change

The way we view change and the strategies of how to manage change are many, and reading the book “Breaking the code of change” I have seen an inspiring way of structuring these approaches to change that I would like to share with you.

The authors call it the Theory E and O of change. – E stands for Economical Value and O for Organizational Capabilities.

Curious? Read more…

Theory E sees change initiatives as a mean to optimize shareholder value and maximize profits. Leaders set goals based on the expectations of the financial markets, and as one leader puts it. “I have a goal of $176 million this year and there is no time to involve others or develop organizational capabilities.”

Leaders of this approach do not trust lower-level managers with tough, strategic decisions, and do not have the time to build consensus through participation. The natural focus is on achieving results by changing strategies, structures and systems – the “hardware” of the organization.

Capital market expectations force a short and tight schedule for change and the change will most often be a carefully planned, well-sequenced program for change.
Theory E changes rely on financial incentives to motivate a singular focus on creating economic value.

To achieve rapid and extraordinary improvements in economic value, companies often hire large consulting firms to infuse specialized knowledge, market knowledge and best practice across industries.

Theory O change aims to develop organizational capabilities – especially the capabilities of the employees to become involved in identifying and solving work-related problems and challenges. A main driver is emotional commitment to the change and to improving the performance of the company.

Leading change from this perspective involves a high level of involvement and collaboration at all levels of the organization. Involvement is seen as vital for building the partnership, trust and commitment that key to long-term performance improvements.

Theory O will see the main challenge as changing culture, belief systems and values that over time has given structure and systems legitimacy. There is a natural focus on values and behavior and top management will use these to shape the company culture and guide employee behavior.
The change is managed by a clear vision and values and will be implemented with local participation and experiments – providing a space for a more emergent, bottom-up process that is well anchored in the reality of every business unit.

Focus will be on providing personal incentives with less emphasis on financial incentives and more on skills and collaboration. The consultant role in Theory O change initiatives focuses on designing and facilitating processes, being an experienced resource and sparring partner for how to move the change along as we learn, adjust and get better.

——

As the authors point out, it’s not necessarily an either or situation but a matter of integrating both approaches in the design for change. But at the end of the day, I believe that we must choose which initial path we are taking and what underlying principles we use when looking at change and working to see it come true.

I have to say that I’m a believer in the “O” way of working with most change initiatives. What about you?