Change Management is Not About People

By Don Purdon

Many senior executives I speak to don’t “get” change management.? They don’t understand what it is, they keep getting told they need it, but they have not seen its benefit demonstrated.? They may have heard of some change approaches (e.g. ADKAR, Prosci), and they know about the “change curve” (the various emotions people go through during change), but they have not seen the value it claims to have, aside from training and communications.?

I think one reason for this is because the quality and experience of change managers in the market varies considerably.? Most are well versed in the various approaches, techniques and tools of change, while others are ex communications, administrative, project, or HR people, who have seen a way to broaden their utility as a contractor – so, they take on the moniker of “change manager”. ?They can fill out templates, but not use the information to make change. And many of those who are experienced, focus almost entirely on “people” related activities, rather than considering the broader needs of the business.?This is not to say that these people related aspects are not important - my view is that this people focus is too narrow.

So what does good change management look like?? The table summarises my view of what high value change management focuses on, and the converse.

Firstly, let’s look at the standard column. ?Many change management approaches that undertake these activities have their primary goal as keeping employees informed and happy during change.? Informed people, happier people, less resistance, is the strategy.? The approach is to communicate with employees about what is changing, train them in any new skills they will need, and then largely leave it to them and their managers to sort out any issues post “go-live”. With this approach, there will be things that are missed, and things that go wrong.? These misses and errors are often explained as “change” issues, implying that they should be expected.? Because the business groups receiving the change have internal/external customer pressure, they have a large incentive to make the change work no matter what.? They and their teams are compelled to nut out manual workarounds to “patch up” the issues so their business group can continue to deliver operations or services/products.? The project often promises to fix these workarounds, but invariably there is no budget left to tackle “the patch-ups” or “the tail”, resulting in the workarounds becoming permanent.? The increased time on workarounds or rework means timesaving or FTE benefits may not be realised.? When the programme shuts down, the accountability for the benefits realisation is often not clearly assigned.

The business/high-value column is what executives should expect from change management.? Good change management should focus on business performance, not “the people”.? This is not to say that people are not the key to effective change – they are pivotal.? But in my view a sole focus on “people” takes the change function’s eye off other areas – benefits, processes, technology, and culture, to name a few.? The activities I list in the business/high-value column cover a range of areas – but the first two items in this column are the most critical:? 1) maintaining business performance during the change; 2) gaining the anticipated increased performance (benefits) post change.? Let’s look at each of these, framing them as questions.

How will the organisation maintain business performance during the change?? Some people reading this will say that maintaining business performance is not change management’s job.? But if change management does not pick up this challenge, who will?? Change management has an ideal purview to undertake this role because it looks across all aspects of the change.? In some large programmes there is a role focused on service centre performance - this undertakes to beef up the service centre employee numbers temporarily post go-live, to handle increased call volume, especially if there is a change to a customer facing technology or processes. This workstream often has either a dedicated “Service Centre” lead, or is led by the Service Centre Manager with some support and funding from the programme.? However, barring this exception, in most programmes the business is left to solve their “capacity” problem themselves, often relying on the goodwill and flexibility of the typically versatile and willing NZ employee to learn a new way of working while they keep their service at the same level.? Longer hours are inevitable, and burnout is possible.? Change management should consider business performance impact and continuity as part of its standard “impact analysis” process.

How will the business cement in place the anticipated benefits of making this change?? The reason for making a change is to improve performance in some way – this is the benefit. ?The change function is best positioned to design and manage the benefits realisation process.? All change methodologies have an “embedding” or “sustaining” phase – the change manager can add “benefits” to the list of things it has to “embed”, along with behaviour, capabilities, culture, business processes, service levels…to name a few.? Technical input from a benefits specialist is likely required.

The role I have described in the high value column requires what I call a “Business Change” manager - one who understands commerce, technology, business processes, services/products, leadership – and change, and has some scars to prove it – scars gained from some part of their life being in a business management role and being “at the sharp end” of organisational change.? In a large change programme, this person should be senior enough to report directly to the change Sponsor (often a Tier 2 manager), or into a Programme Director/Manager, but with a dotted line to the Sponsor. In update meetings with governance, the attendees are the Sponsor, the Programme Director, and the Business Change Director/Manager. They will likely have a team under them to carry out the change work.

The model I have described here is not the norm.? The likely scenario in my experience is for the Sponsor of a large change programme to appoint a Programme Director/Manager, who then recruits to a structure that has worked for them in the past, that includes a standard change manager who will likely perform the tasks in the standard column. To “raise the bar” to the level I have described in the high value column requires the CE(O) and Sponsor to actively recruit a second senior person into a Business Change role, and for that role to sit in a structure that provides them with equal status/power as the Programme Director/Manager.? This then allows the change role the influence to set up processes and mechanisms to solve business problems, to carry out rigorous analysis, gather and present information to leadership, and facilitate business oriented decisions based on this information. This also provides the Sponsor with a check/balance on both the Programme Director and the Business Change Director.

Americas Cup leader and sailor Peter Blake evaluated ideas for his winning yachting campaign on the basis of, “Will it make the boat go faster?”? The same level of ambition should be held by CE(O)’s for the change function’s contribution to their business. Otherwise, employ more training and communications people.