Change Management or Leading Transformation?

A new approach to executing transformational initiatives.

Written by: Casey Jenkins , Owner of Eight Twenty-Eight Consulting LLC

?

I've always known that I was different. No, don't worry or stop reading. This isn't the start to my book "Caseysplination: An Overexplained Autobiography"... However, I've always been cognizant that I approach or perceive things very differently than most. Especially when it comes to business and supply chain.

I've had some say it's because I'm able to compartmentalize so quickly. Some have said it's because I have a gift of situational awareness. Some say it's because I have a mind that's oriented toward complexity, like calculus for example. But it wasn't until I had stumbled across an article that it hit me…I have a transformational mind in a transactional world.

Why is this important and what does this have to do with change management?

Well, because my transformational mind has always conflicted with transactional mindsets. And it wasn't until reading this article that I realized that there is a massive difference between managing change and leading transformation. Now this is not breaking down the difference in leadership versus management and various leadership styles (trust me you can scroll LinkedIn for plenty of those "inspirational quotes"). Instead, it's taking a leadership theory and applying it to execution.

Change Management

As we all know, many organizations are executing projects, initiatives, and transformations as a means to take their operations from the current state to a desired, improved state. There are a lot of changes happening within the industry and within organizations. And, that change is constant.

I had done a Two Minute Topics series on Change Management while back, but I’ve always wondered why change is seen so negatively, why there’s resistance, and why change sometimes doesn’t stick.

When it comes down to it, change management is simply managing change to ensure the success of an initiative even after implementation is completed. Often seen as a separate piece to project management, change management is actually a fundamental strategy interlacing with these executions as organizations will be faced with second order change, or a shift and realignment of strategy, core processes, and organizational vision or direction.

A majority of the time, executions fail due to the inability to adapt to change from multiple perspectives; people, products, and processes. I've seen this listed as separate pillars of change management, but my transformational mind argues that these are interlacing and equally weighted factors as people impact processes which impact products, and products impact processes which impact people. So, changes will impact all three simultaneously.

The key pieces of setting up a change initiative are:

1. DEFINE & UNDERSTAND. Understanding the WHY of the change will be key in executing the change. The WHY should stem from the business case of the project, initiative, or transformation, and includes what impacts will occur either positive or negative. Lack of understanding of the change will lead to failure of implementation.
2. PLANNING. This is identifying HOW the change will be executed. While planning the project tangibles is one piece, planning how those tangibles impact processes, products, and people is another. Planning must encompass the impacts during execution, and include monitoring post implementation to ensure that objective KPIs and metrics are still being achieved. Planning should also include training programs to ensure resources are supported and ready to execute on the change.
3. EXECUTE. This is the change or project execution. As the execution unfolds, monitoring and control methods can be employed to gauge the overall project health.

Communication is also commonly seen as its own entity within change management, but approaching with the transformational mindset identifies communication throughout the entire lifecycle with strategies around who needs to know what, and when.

Effective change management acts as both a method of process control, and as a risk management strategy. While projects serve as the primary way that change is driven, executed, and implemented within organizations, projects can be seen as a change process. As with any process, the change must be monitored and controlled to avoid potential deviations or risks. This is the typical method of risk management and process control within the change project itself. However, the change being executed usually impacts and feeds into other operational processes, workflows, technologies, tools, and/or organizational cultures as the means to alter them into a better state.

Let’s use an example to convey this concept: Old Process ?? New Process.

The old process has a set of resources performing activities and tasks, utilizing tools and technologies, and a process that combines those components together to produce an output. In order to transform the old process into the new, a project is executed. This project will have plans of how to take the old components and evolve them into the new through performing various activities of the project itself. Within the project plans are potential risks that could occur that could impact scope, timeline, and budget. However, the risks within the project (change) don’t just remain in the project itself. If the goal of the project is the new process as an output, then that means that the new process must be monitored post implementation to ensure that the project is performing as intended. In other words, managing the change.

When approaching change management, it’s common to see the use of WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY, and HOW. These simple words can help to understand the change from all perspectives of it. Here are a few questions associated with these words:

• WHO = Who is the change impacting, who needs to be involved in different components, who is responsible for different activities, who are the resources being used?
• WHAT = What is the change, what activities are included, what are the requirements, what operations are being impacted?
• WHEN = When is the change occurring, when does each stage need facilitated, when does communication need to occur, when does training need to be facilitated?
• WHERE = Where in the business is the change occurring, where can resources be found to support the change, where is access to information?
• WHY = Why is the change occurring?
• HOW = How is the change going to happen, how are people going to react, how does this impact our product/service?

Obviously, there is overlap in the 5 W’s and How. The reason that this approach is important when it relates to change is because they identify the necessary actions to be taken from an integrated perspective. This integrated and connected approach also supports sustainability of the change initiative as it keeps the transformation focused. In other words, the interconnected transactional components feed into the overall transformation.

?

The Article: Transformation vs. Transactional

The article that sparked this: Transformational Leadership in a Transactional World (referenced below). I want to preface this with the fact that I am not na?ve that there is a leadership component to driving change. However, the focus here isn't necessarily the leadership theory proposed. Moreso of how mindsets need to be shifted in order to drive the industry and business perspectives forward; regardless of if you are a leader or not.

The opening paragraph of this article reads as follows:

"They are highly successful managers of a business operations group that is responsible for collaborating with customers to manage the supply chain..." (SIDE NOTE: I kept reading because of this opening line) "They really know how to run business operations. However, when asked to think about re-designing their organization to handle five times the volume, these otherwise effective managers were stumped (Seidman & McCauley, 2011)."

It goes on to discuss how there is a dominance of transactional thinking within organizations (especially in leadership positions), and how this mindset is actually negatively impacting performance improvement (Seidman & McCauley, 2011). It continues on to explain the transformational mindset, the impact that this shifted mindset has on an organization, and how tactical or transactional approaches do not necessarily allow an organization to adapt to a changing world effectively.

As I was reading the article, I found myself pondering on whether this was why there is a known resistance to change, why changes tend to not stick, and why improvement projects fail. Is it because “change” is seen as a transactional activity to achieve an end goal? Is it because there isn’t the desire to want to change, but something must be done? Is it because there’s a lack of understanding all around (from leadership to executional levels) of what change is needed, why it's needed, and how to achieve it?

I know as someone who has been the recipient of change and has led changes, I’ve seen all of the above in action. Change of any sense cannot simply be managed. Change has to drive transformation; transformation of people, transformation of processes, transformation of tools/tech, transformation of products.

?

Transformation vs. Change Management

So why wouldn't tactical or transactional approaches allow effective business evolution in a changing landscape? Well, because transactional mindsets are simply managing the change.

We live in a transactional world making everything we do into "a discrete, measurable transaction (Seidman & McCauley, 2011)." The focus is on tactical goals and how to create excellence operationally based on things we can measure (Seidman & McCauley, 2011).

(Side note: This is not to say that measurables are not useful. However, this is more to back-up the claims that data and measurables must be actionable to generate more transformational and forward-thinking perspectives.)

In other words, change initiatives are executed with one concept in mind: hit the numbers. Or hit the measurable. Achieve the output. When you really stop to think about it, it now makes sense of why change is seen so negatively, why changes don’t stick, and why improvement projects fail. This transactional and narrow perspective has limited the ability to open minds to how change and transformation are actually key pieces to business evolution. "Organizational change requires the people in the organization to personally embrace the change, which is not an attitude typically found in most transactional environments (Seidman & McCauley, 2011)." If you have transactional mindsets managing change, then embracing change or taking a transformational perspective is not occurring. Along with that, the environment will not support positive deviants or change agents. No matter what change management steps you take.

This is not to say that different leadership styles aren’t needed for different scenarios. I’m well aware of how leaders need to apply various styles based on scenario, level, people, responsibilities, etc. Instead, this argues that leadership must be able to apply various styles that contribute to the overall transformation in order to see it succeed on a broader perspective.

Shifting the Mindset

Now, here's where my transformational mind is proposing a new way to look at it: Transformation is the overarching umbrella being fed by transactional components. (This is a true Casey perspective right here; hierarchal strategic process fed by executional components.)

Obviously, since I proposed that line of thought, I’m aware that there are transactional or tactical components that need to occur during transformative initiatives. But its balancing transactional excellence while the transformation is ongoing. It's also sustaining change despite transactional pressures attempting to counteract.

The components of change management will contribute to the transformation; people, processes, and products are still the key pillars of transformations. Managing change from the transactional sense will remain as well (metrics, KPIs, and accountability). However, it's taking the mindset that transactions are simply pieces of the overall goal. It's not just from a leadership perspective either (albeit important). It's taking that leadership perspective and putting it into action to shift execution, regardless of the position you are in.

So ponder on this, what is your mindset?

References:

1. Pinto, J. K. (2020). Project Management: Achieving Competitive Advantage. Pearson Education Limited.
2. Project Management Institute (PMI) (2017). A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK guide). Sixth Edition.
3. Seidman, W., & McCauley, M. (2011). Transformational Leadership in a Transactional World. OD Practitioner, 43(2). Pages 46-51.

Do you want a one-on-one Caseysplination? As a valued newsletter reader, you're invited to register for a complimentary intro consultation meeting. This is your chance to kickstart your process improvement or supply chain initiatives aimed at streamlining operations, boosting efficiency, and elevating your supply chain performance with expert guidance. Reserve your time here .

??

Casey Jenkins, owner and CEO of Eight Twenty-Eight Consulting LLC, is a supply chain and process improvement advisor and educator. Offering advisory, educational, and project-based services, she adeptly combines education and experience to solve complex supply chain problems. Reach out today to find out how to Take Your Company to the Summit.