Leading change and making it stick

Change can come in many forms and at its core involves making something different, not necessarily making something better. By simply introducing a change it also does not guarantee that it will stick.

Whether it is a new tool, a new system, a new direction or a new set of values, it is important to understand how an effective change management process can be designed and developed, documented, rolled out and managed to ensure that it becomes institutionalised.

After all, truly transformative change is a process, not an event comprised of a series of phases that often require a considerable length of time to deliver - even years. A large proportion of change initiatives fail due to ineffective design, delivery and time allowed for the change to embed.

For the purposes of this article, it is assumed that a change project has the intention of improving rather than simply changing something. Any person within an organisation can be an innovator - leading a change project her or him- self, a driver - driving change led by others, or an adopter - implementing changes on the front-lines. Whilst relevant for all groups alike, this article is designed to provide a roadmap grounded in keynote research for innovators to lead effective change projects, and for adopters and drivers to better understand the processes in which they play a part.

Approaches to change

In business, a change project at any level is usually designed to improve the 'bottom line' and drive profitability. By nature, a non-government organisation (NGO) does not sell the value it creates, but business thinking is still applicable when considering quality, efficiency, value for money and the humanitarian 'bottom line' to save lives.

At a broad level, there can be considered two types of change project designed to drive organisational development, performance enhancement and positive returns: a harder 'Theory E' approach that emphasises economic value; and a softer 'Theory O' approach that emphasises organisational capabilities.

By emphasising economic value, usually measured by shareholder returns, Theory E boosts revenue through hard restructuring, lay-offs and financial incentives. Change is driven from the top down, following a clear, comprehensive plan of action encouraging internal coordination and designed to inspire confidence amongst all stakeholders.

By prioritising organisational capabilities, Theory O boosts productivity and thereby revenue through soft restructuring around values or principles designed to shape employee competence, commitment, attitudes and behaviours. Change is built from the bottom up, experimenting and evolving and encouraging teamwork and communication to create trust and emotional commitment to the organisation. It is more evolutionary and emergent.

Whilst a change project and its many phases may require elements of both approaches, it is often difficult for the same leader to sequence them. For example, after a leader embraces Theory O and builds human capabilities, loyalty and commitment, this can prevent tough decision-making and seem like betrayal to employees. There is a risk that difficult decisions are postponed in the hope that increased productivity and returns are just around the corner, whereas structural change is required. Sequenced change may indeed require two different leaders, carefully chosen for their contrasting styles.

For NGOs, a Theory E approach might prioritise the economic value of the country office, measured by harder metrics related to donor funding available to spend on humanitarian programmes. A Theory O approach might look more holistically at the overall set of programmes and operations, and zoom more into the reach, quality and impact of programmes. 

Realistically, institutional survival is dependent on a blend of both. Such a 'blended approach' or 'ThEOry' must recognise the paradox between maximising economic value ‘for good’ whilst building organisational capability and investing in people. Such an approach sees the change process directed from the top, with heavy engagement from the bottom. There is a plan with flexibility to allow for spontaneity. The focus is equally on the hard structures and systems as it is on the soft culture side. Financial incentives are used to reinforce change, but not to drive it.

Results at the heart of change

Whilst there may be a broad change project in motion from the highest levels of leadership, any person, any innovator, within an organisation can launch a change project at any level, given that it does not run counter to any broader initiative underway.

The first thing an innovator should do is place a commitment to results at the heart of the change project. This cuts out the need for extended preparation and heads right to accomplishing measurable improvements as quickly as possible.

To achieve results quickly, an innovator should remember these five core principles:

• Get buy-in and build motivation by co-identifying problems with subordinates: once a core group of drivers is mobilised around mutually agreed problems, it is easier to start effecting change;
• Break a broad vision into tangible goals and targets: seemingly insurmountable change is made accessible by creating realistic steps to get there;
• Only introduce process innovations when needed: innovators must carefully prioritise the innovations they need to make to achieve specific goals;
• Test what works, learn from what doesn’t: innovators should create a space where innovations can be tested, reviewed and learnt from in real time;
• Frequently reinforce successes to energise improvement: short-term incremental projects that quickly bring tangible results should be celebrated, as they are a great motivator and stimulate further innovation.

There have been critiques that organisations often over-emphasise the soft side of change and whilst important, change projects struggle to get going unless hard issues are addressed first. A results-driven approach demands that immediate actions target the most urgent needs.

Leading change

Change often requires creating new systems and processes, which demands leadership. In the 'blended approach' of 'ThEOry', the innovator must have and be guided by an overarching vision, values and strategic plan, but remain nimble to improvise and react as events unfold. Good leadership in this sense requires initiative to understand what is happening today and react to tailor plans for tomorrow. The innovator should internalise ambitious goals that situate the organisation in the future and then manage from there.

The innovator must also understand the context better than anyone, identify crucial business challenges and opportunities, and is fully accountable for the broader frameworks driving her or his change project.

On the flip side of top-level direction is bottom-up grassroots buy-in; the innovator cannot be too directive. Indeed, change cannot be installed from the top and must have bottom-up buy-in. The innovator can create a climate for change, specifying an overall vision and direction without prescribing specific solutions. This must then translate into a market for change, where demanding standards are set for all operations and drivers and adopters are helping accountable to them. Successful operations can be used as organisational showcases.

As much of the work and problem-solving as possible should be transferred to others. When it is necessary and expected, the innovator can go in and fix problems, yet this should not be the norm. The innovator’s role is more to provide the overall structure for the problem-solving process, and create working groups with specific tasks, timeframes, decision-making rules and reporting lines.

Such innovators, who challenge prevailing wisdom and provoke institutional transformation, are guided by firm commitments but flexible delivery, and unite others in a shared vision and shared commitments fixed around hard results, have been described as 'tempered radicals'. Such innovators yearn for quick results but recognise that true change is a long process that over time delivers evolutionary transformation.

Getting buy-in and motivation

If an innovator does not get buy-in and motivation, it is unlikely that anyone will help and the change effort may stall. Particularly where timeframes are long and turnover is high, urgency levels can drop, which reinforces the need for shorter-term goals and targets. 

Innovators must get the buy-in of a group of key drivers. By bringing on board these influencers at an early stage, it frees the need for the innovator to directly motivate everyone, as a trickle-down effect will emerge. 

Early on, an innovator must sit with those individuals who must be drivers of change for the project to succeed, to co-identify the most urgent performance improvements and then agree on goals for improvement, with clear targets and timeframes. There should be agreement on which process innovations will be tested, and how these will be reviewed and learnt from. Targeted improvements should focus on structure and systems, rather than specific content, so that change is still felt tomorrow and not just today. 

Drivers are key allies to the innovator, and once a change project has been launched, there should be regular reviews to appraise progress against the plan. Changes that have worked can be institutionalised and the rest discarded. 

A more difficult demographic to bring on board is the adopters. These are people who will be affected by, and expected to implement change, but may not have too much control or say in its design. Buy-in at this level is equally important and cannot be assumed through the trickle-down effect alone. 

To achieve buy-in, every individual, every adopter, must understand and believe that they can personally affect organisational performance, and have the power to change things. Ideally, every adopter identifies in some way with the organisational objectives, but at the very least should feel connected to the objectives of her or his functional unit or department. 

To better reach adopters, it is important to consider that research shows people prefer to receive information from their immediate supervisors, rather than from senior or distant leaders. If change plans are learnt from a trusted, familiar and credible source, buy-in is likely to be higher. Therefore, innovators should focus their efforts on drivers, and leave the drivers to filter the message to adopters. If there are further layers, drivers should cultivate sub-drivers and so forth, such that key messages are heard from supervisor-level by adopters.

One model to do this is for innovators to hold face-to-face briefings with drivers, and drivers with sub-drivers, in two rounds. In the first round, the change is explained and recommendations are invited. The recommendations are then reflected upon by the innovator and as many as possible integrated into plans, recognising that the more input that is reflected, the more buy-in there will likely to be. The second round of briefings focuses on reporting back on the status of the recommendations and explaining the final plan. The drivers and sub-drivers then have first-hand understanding to go and explain everything to the adopters. 

At a macro-level, to better connect adopters to the bigger picture, one strategy is for innovators or drivers to hold brainstorming sessions and prepare learning maps to communicate the bigger picture, including over-arching business conditions, trends in the operational environment, and the placement of the organisation in the ecosystem. At a micro-level, the results-driven approach helps employees see how their individual actions fit into the larger strategic context. 

A valuable strategy to support the macro- and micro- approaches is to encourage value creation mapping. This involves innovators or drivers leading discussion with adopters of the value creation process and pinpointing specific direct and indirect links between the adopter and the overall process. In the case of a NGO, value creation starts with ideas and opportunities, is nurtured through proposal development, is delivered through implementation, and is closed with reflection and audit. 

Amongst adopters, there may even emerge ‘guerrilla leaders’ who step forward under pressure and engage in leader-like acts, also helping to drive change. Allies on the front-line are extremely valuable and should be rewarded and encouraged. 

However, not everyone will support change. Innovators may be required to launch quasi-political campaigns to create supportive coalitions for change, even at the driver level. Those who openly oppose change should not be dismissed, rather co-opted so challenges can be directly addressed. 

Innovators must harness the constructive energy of disagreement whilst reducing destructive potential. A secure place needs to be created so conflicts can safely bubble up and the temperature controlled. Uncompromising straight talk should be encouraged. The temperature can be raised artificially by zooming into hard issues or moving conflicts out into the open. It can also be lowered when necessary to avoid counterproductive disruption. Heated sticking points can be solved by slowing the overall pace of change or tackling simpler technical elements of the problem. 

Working out how to communicate change

Change must be well packaged and well sold. The key messages should be clear, bold and provide compelling evidence for why things need to be done differently. Optimism and realism should be balanced to make people feel cared for, whilst keeping them focused on what needs to be achieved. The key messages should be possible to communicate in five minutes or less and generate understanding and interest. 

Heavy communication should be made by innovators and drivers around the agreed goals and targets, and the plan to achieve them. Unless people believe the change is attainable, a change project is unlikely to succeed. After drivers and sub-drivers have had the chance to explain the broad vision and the small details to the adopters, the pre-final change project plan can be released at large. 

It may make sense to run a marketing and persuasion campaign to gain access to employee’s thoughts and feelings, as well as to communicate the main themes and anticipated benefits of change, and to highlight differences from the past. The campaign should start weeks or months before the actual plan is set in concrete. If multiple communication channels are used, this can increase the reach of the key messages. 

Where values are concerned, the only effective way to communicate is to act in accordance with them and give others an incentive to do the same. By applying the values to concrete behaviours, and creating objective measures for performance, values will be demonstrated more clearly than words ever could. Opportunities should be provided for people to practice desired behaviours and when necessary, disruptive and divisive behaviours could be criticised publicly.

Measuring success and making change stick

Given that deep transformation takes time, it is incredibly important to have set short-term concrete goals and targets, and to review them regularly. Successes against these goals should be celebrated. However, victory should never be declared and instead, the energy and credibility afforded by a win should be leveraged to tackle even bigger problems. 

Innovators and drivers should review progress against the change project often - no less frequent than once every two months. These reviews should capture key learnings and directly guide any necessary strategy adjustments. The results-driven approach has learning at its core, using successes of challenges from one phase to influence and improve the next. During periods of intense activity, even daily real time review sessions can help teams to better coordinate and improve for the next day's activity. 

For reviews to be effective, the learning process must start at the beginning of an activity, and lessons learnt be linked explicitly to future actions. Innovators, drivers and adopters should all take notes during their activities to facilitate and prepare for upcoming reviews. 

When innovators see a team is running into trouble, it may be productive to create a new project team to tackle a particularly difficult issue. Under the right conditions, new stressors can unlock old patterns of behaviour and create a new space for understanding and learning. Hard data should be collected through this process and reflected on at review stage. To put the pressure on team members, leadership should promote inventive accountability. 

Change sticks when it becomes 'the way things are done around here', or when it has spread from the core and infiltrated the periphery of the organisation. Revitalisation may be driven from the top but it actually starts at the outside edges. If the innovator successfully co-opts drivers, and drivers successfully connect adopters with the bigger picture, and all are working towards common targets, then the change project has a good chance of success. The critical 'tipping point' of people buying into the change must be reached, and after this, conversion to the new way of working should spread quickly and realise fundamental change. 

The innovator must take time to demonstrate how the new approaches, behaviours and attitudes are realising improved performance. These connections should be explicitly made, otherwise motivation may slip. Likewise, new behaviours, unless rooted in values and norms, will degenerate as soon as the pressure for change is removed.  

When an innovator plans to leave, she or her must ensure that the next person taking the role is also bought into the change project, through a personal handover and shaping of this person into a key driver, and a detailed delivery plan.

_______

Read more

• Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. and Spector, B. (1990) 'Why change programs don't produce change', Harvard Business Review, November-December 1990.
• Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (2000) 'Cracking the code of change', Harvard Business Review, May-June 2000.
• Darling, M., Parry, C. and Moore, J. (2005) 'Learning in the Thick of It', Harvard Business Review, July-August 2005.
• Garvin, D. and Roberto, M. (2005) 'Change through persuasion', Harvard Business Review, February 2005.
• Heifetz, R. and Linsky, M. (2002) 'A survival guide for leaders', Harvard Business Review, June 2002.
• Hirschorn, L. (2002) 'Campaigning for change', Harvard Business Review, July 2002.
• Kim, W. and Mauborgne, R. (2003) 'Tipping point leadership', Harvard Business Review, April 2003.
• Kotter, P. (2007) 'Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail', Harvard Business Review, January 2007.
• Larkin, T. and Larkin, S. (1996) 'Reaching and changing frontline employees', Harvard Business Review, May-June 1996.
• Meyserson, D. (2001) 'Radical change, the quiet way', Harvard Business Review, October 2001.
• Pascale, R., Millemann, M. and Gioja, L. (1997) 'Changing the way we change', Harvard Business Review, November-December 1997.
• Schaffer, R. and Thomson, H. (1992) 'Successful change programs begin with results', Harvard Business Review, January-February 1992.
• Sirkin, H. and Keenan, P. (2005) 'The hard side of change management', Harvard Business Review, October 2005.