How can you measure organizational effectiveness after a change?

Organizational effectiveness is not only needed after a change but it is even critical to do it during the change. Doing it after a change is a reactive approach and will not create any value. Change comes in different forms and not necessary that it must be part of yearly objectives. Sometimes change takes place without even having an impact on the objectives such as you could have an organization structure change to make it lean and still achieve your other yearly objectives. But each change must have its own goals or objectives with proper timeline and roles.

Change adoption indicators are fundamental to change management. It is important to keep in mind that change management contributes to the realization of value, which is measured by indicators well known by management. But indicators of change are measured by behaviors and attitudes. The implementation of a system, for example, only delivers the expected performance improvement (value realization) if people really want to use it (attitude, intention). Do they love it or hate it? Intention to use is one of the indicators that measures attitudes. Even some governments consider attitudes to evaluate success. The Technology Acceptance Model or Beckhard &Harris' change equation are good references for drawing these indicators of change.

KPIs need to be set before the change process, and then revised/enriched if needed during the transformation period as new realities may come up. KPIs need to be both financial and non-financial, and not too many in number to facilitate clarity towards goal achievement. Most financial indicators are lagging indicators, hence customer, innovation, quality, operational indicators tell us upfront about future financial performance.

Measuring involves multiple approaches starting with Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) like employee productivity, financial metrics and customer satisfaction to gauge immediate impact. Employee feedback, through surveys & attrition rates, provides insights into morale & acceptance of the change. Evaluate process efficiency by tracking metrics such as time-to-market & error rates to understand operational improvements. Benchmarking against industry standards & historical data offers a comparative analysis for effectiveness. Qualitative measures like leadership reviews & cultural alignment tools can add depth to the assessment. By integrating both quantitative and qualitative methods, you can holistically assess organizational effectiveness.

In my experience, retention of key talent, motivated team and improving metrics tell me it was a successful and well-executed change. The tough ones are where there is poor communication, lack of attention/prioritization and individualistic/departmental goals instead of cross functional groups working together to deliver a better outcome.

Consider collecting both qualitative and quantitative data post-implementation, as when both are looked at together, it provides richer insights. In addition, watch our for consequential metrics. These are metrics that may be negatively impacted by an improvement in the primary metric. For example, if a project was intended to reduce manual work by automating a process, thereby reducing operating costs (primary metric), one may want to measure employee engagement (secondary and potential consequential metric), to ensure that another problem isn’t being created after the change (automation) has been implemented.

*Determine your data collection needs. Identify the key performance indicators (KPIs) that align with change management goals and decide which data collection methods will be most efficient and effective. *Decide which types of change management data to use. *Collect data from multiple sources and at multiple points in time. Use tools such as surveys, interviews, observations, reports, or analytics platforms to gather data from various stakeholders and perspectives. *Analyze data using appropriate techniques and tools. Depending on the type and format of your data. *Communicate and act on the data findings and recommendations. Share the results of data analysis with the relevant stakeholders to use them to guide change management actions.

First - define your metrics. What is important? What do you want to track against? And don't use 100% adoption as a metric - it just never happens. I have honest conversations with executives as to what to expect re: adoption of change. However - the earlier we can engage employees in change - the higher the adoption rate! Throughout the change initiative you want to gather data in a variety of ways - focus groups, surveys, via your change champions, through observations, etc - in order to understand how effective the OCM practices have been to engage employees in the change with an ultimate goal of adoption of change. Regularly check on progress towards your metrics - don't wait until the end!

Initially you need to understand what specifically you are changing within the business. What consistent and measurable data can be used to track changes. Establish a baseline of the data prior to change and understand what metrics you will choose to measure success / failure. The metrics used need to be consistent from the point of establishing the baseline, through until after change has occurred. You need to understand what success and failure looks like in the metrics. Understand what external factors can have an undue influence on the metrics you are using, e.g. market driven changes, inflation, etc. These external influences need to be accounted for to keep a true track of your changes. Then commit the change and track the data.

Balanced scorecards are a good model, but these are usually used for strategic purposes and not focused on change management. I would frame the change management evaluation the same way evaluation professionals do, formative and summative evaluation. Summative are the outcomes, that could be influence by the organizational change. These could be things like greater productivity, more engagement, wellness, process improvement, technology adoption. You develop KPIs for these and collect at the beginning and forever more. There are also formative metrics to use along the way to make sure the changes are being implemented correctly and understood. This is a balanced approach in my book.

For change management, I frame it in terms of Leading and Lagging success indicators. Your Lagging indicators are the organisational benefits that you want to bring about as a result of the change - ROI, ESAT, CSAT etc. Leading indicators are those that indicate the change has landed successfully - e.g. Adoption, Utilisation and user feedback. This data will allow you to identify and address gaps which will lead to greater organisational gains in the long run.

I've seen balanced scorecards work most effectively when measuring both quantitative and qualitative elements. Any change has a rational and emotional element so true success delivers across both. The rational is easier to measure - did our lead-times reduce? Have we made the projected savings? For the emotional side we should ask those affected about their experience and if it has it improved their work life. You can collect quantitative data to these types of questions e.g - rate how the changes have made it easier for you to do your job etc - but to get to the richness that will help you understand the real story and its impact on your change history, organisations should invest in talking to those who were impacted.

Balanced scorecards was a masterpiece in terms of formal definition and implementation of a robust KPI's set related to the business strategy;but this model has a relevant lack for supporting a consistent implementation in a dynamic and global supply chain, as today market imposes:we haven't a precise relationship between KPI and business process that could impact these KPI; more,we haven't a best practices set that we can consider as reference when we analyze and improve a specific business process; finally, we haven't a specific path in terms of how to improve the real strategic asset of the company: the people skills. The SCOR DS model, with a new circular approach, resolves these lacks offering a robust framework to KPI implementation.

While the BSC looks at metrics like ROI, profit margins, and revenue growth, integrating SEAM would mean also accounting for hidden costs that could affect financial health, such as increased absenteeism or decreased productivity due to mismanaged change. SEAM prompts a deeper evaluation of operational processes by emphasizing the socio-psychological effects. For instance, if a change improves process efficiency but demotivates staff or erodes team cohesion, it might not be sustainable in the long run.

It might be helpful to consider both short and long-term change targets. (a) For instance, compare short-term cost & schedule "results" with actual cost & schedule "benchmarks." (b) And compare long-term org capability, competence and stakeholder-value "results" with actual org capability, competence, and stakeholder-value "benchmarks." Have you ever noticed the middle letters of “change” spell “hang? Perhaps this is a sign that there can be some real “hang-ups” in change. But careful planning and disciplined execution can reduce or eliminate such “hang-ups.”

When you set targets, SEAM emphasizes both the tangible (economic) and the intangible (socio-psychological). For instance, if a target was set for productivity, SEAM would encourage consideration of how changes to achieve this target could impact employee well-being or team cohesion. In essence, while the traditional approach focuses on whether objectives are met, SEAM integrates the "how"—ensuring the path to achieving those objectives is sustainable, considerate of human potential, and economically sound.

I once collaborated with a technology sales organization in its transition from a conventional to a consultative sales approach. Key actions included: Conducting a thorough gap analysis to understand the current and future states. Establishing a performance baseline for assessment. Engaging stakeholders through awareness, training, and support. Implementing change in phases with continuous performance monitoring. Evaluating the impact against baseline data post-implementation.

Do not forget to communicate about the effect of the target set. It is nice to increase customer satisfaction, decrease employee turnover etc. But why...? Why did you start this?? What difference did it really make?

Yes! Keep it simple - talk to your key constituents! And not just during performance reviews or All Hands meetings - check in often. Stay visible, stay human. Now more than ever, people are craving authentic compassion and connection and it starts with getting out of your office, walking around, shaking hands and asking people “how are you doing?” If you’re an extra brave leader, walk into the employee break room with a box of bagels and schmears and introduce yourself and ask “what can we do better?”

Findings, achievements would be apparent. Celebrations need to be in order for this, and cheer-up everyone. Besides, two critical things: Ensuring each individual who's been part of the change irrespective of their disposition needs to be acknowledged and thanked by appropriate leaders. Next, Must bring forward experiences and learning stories to the fore, and celebrate all those early adapters, influencers to make any change a rewarding experience even to the aspiring ones.

Incorporating SEAM principles, it's not just about sharing numerical results. It's about acknowledging the socio-economic interplay behind those outcomes. Communicate the tangible successes and also spotlight the improvements in team morale, reduced hidden costs, or enhanced human potential. Celebrate both the economic milestones and the socio-psychological wins. By doing so, you build a culture that values both hard metrics and the human elements that drive them, fostering holistic progress and a commitment to comprehensive organizational betterment.

70% of all change initiatives fail. When an organization beats these odds, and breaks the strangle hold of the status quo, it should loudly celebrate this rare achievement. I recommend this celebration be done by creating a Hero’s Journey narrative. This storytelling techniques highlights the challenges overcome, and showcases the positive impact of the changes on the organization as a whole. This narrative also provides ample opportunity to recognize, and express appreciation, for the discretionary effort that individual Team Leaders and Team Members gave to support, and continue to give, to sustain the change initiative. This approach also frames change as an ongoing journey and encourages others to participate in future change efforts.

There are several reasons why one would want to actively communicate and celebrate the outcomes of change initiatives: - Foster Transparency and Trust: By proactively sharing the results and lessons learned, you establish transparency and build trust with the organizational sponsor of the change. - Elevate Team Morale: Makes employees feel appreciated, motivating them to sustain their high-performance levels. - Promote Continuous Improvement: Sharing best practices and their associated outcomes contributes to the organization's ongoing journey of improvement. - Drive Collaboration: Collaboration is crucial, especially in complex or matrix organizational structures, and celebrating accomplishments encourages teamwork and synergy.

Too often change fails at the embed phase - old practices creep in. Continuing to measure against your success measures (like say an improvement in customer experience or satisfaction, employee sentiment relating understanding their contribution to the organisations objectives, intent to remain in say 2 years time etc, or completion rates of a key task, continuing employment of key staff etc) gives you the chance to ensure the change sticks. Three or six months after the execution of the change, follow up with a retrospective to leaders/managers - what worked, what didn’t, what could we have done more of, what could we have done less of…. Rich insights to leverage.

Organizational feedback is integral to driving change and influencing future actions. To build and maintain trust, you must use any feedback you collect. For example, if overall employee sentiment on a specific team is low, pay special attention to any comments that may identify issues and specific actions that can be taken to rectify them. Communicate future change actions to the team, specify that the changes are a direct response to their feedback, and continue to measure from there.

How are you creating employee engagement to make sure the measurements reflect the desired results? When change occurs, there is a natural tendency to fear the unknown. The flight or fight mindset (response to a threatening situation) is now in play where one goes into a downward spiral vs moving forward. Organizations who place a focus on disrupting fear, stress, worry, insecurity etc. and offers options, less worry and hope generate peace of mind for the employee. People make decisions based on emotions first and then justify with logic. When you create a bridge to get employees to the other side; thought patterns shift from negative to positive. Great starting point to begin measuring change.

The key in leading a change initiative is recognition that is attributes to building and fostering a sustaining change culture in your organization -- don't lose that momentum. Leveraging change measurements provide the data points needed to convey value and impact. Measurements, good or bad, will help identify tactics to repeat, tactics to fix, and tactics to avoid. These measurements are aslo the business justification for needing a sustaining change model for your organization in support of continuous growth and evolution.

It allows organizations to learn from their experiences, identify areas for improvement, and apply best practices. This iterative approach to change management not only helps in addressing any remaining challenges but also contributes to an organization's ability to adapt, grow, and thrive in an ever-changing environment. It's a key component of organizational agility and resilience.

Most importantly one should really monitor changes in the organizational culture. Positive changes in teamwork, collaboration, and employee relationships can indicate a healthier work environment, which contributes to overall organizational effectiveness. For any kind of change to truly happen, it has to be embraced and adopted by the team from within : not because the organization says so, not because the processes indicates so but because they believe it necessary and beneficial for them. There lies the true measure of success for any organizational change.

We've got an approach that measures organisational strength / fitness that is built on the model that is the by a long way the best predictor of organisational survival. So measuring before and after an intervention means we can measure whether the project has increased organisational strength or not, in which aspect and how much its improved. Its like training an athlete...

I am a big believer in the most effective way to drive change is create "positive dissatisfaction". You have to be prepared to articulate the goal and create a desire to reach the other side. In this way you are creating dissatisfaction with the current state. As such, one of the best ways to measure the effectiveness of a change is to perform an engagement/satisfaction survey both in general and around the change topic prior to the change and then again after. This will give you a clear indication of the impact of the initiative on employee engagement. Engaged employees are productive and happy employees and you couldn't ask for more.

Perhaps a summary of this article about measuring the organizational effectiveness of a change could be expressed in the following manner based primarily on Roger Kaufman's Organizational Effectiveness Model. (1) Did the change "inputs" provide a compelling & solid foundation for the change? (2) Was the change "process" collaborative and achieve cost, schedule & performance metrics? (3) Did change “products” improve customer, financial, internal effectiveness, talent, and or technological positions (i.e., Balanced Scorecard), (4) Were the change “outputs” increases in organizational capacity, competence & capabilities? (5) Did the change "outcomes" address the vested interests of owners, economic stakeholders & societal stakeholders?