What is change management: Five reasons change management fails and how to reframe it for success

What is Change Management?

Five Reasons why change management fails and how to reframe it for success

Author: John Brodie, Senior Executive, MAC Consulting

In 20 years of management consulting, I have had the privilege of witnessing and learning from multiple change and business transformation programmes, as I work with business leaders striving to transform their organisations. The kinds of change vary enormously; large-scale technology implementation, operating and business model changes, mergers and acquisitions, culture transitions, strategy implementations such as market expansion, digital transformation and moves to become more customer centric, and, more recently, issues to do with the future of work, or hybrid ways of working.

My roles have varied. Sometimes I’m the change lead, but more often I take an advisory or project support role on strategic alignment, organisational transformation, leadership, learning, communication and culture.?In sharing the above, my aim is to show how change management is not one thing, but a multi-disciplinary and often complex effort to do something new that appears simple but is often incredibly difficult to do – that is, to change people’s behaviour.

Easier said than done!

Some efforts have been successful, the majority only partially successful, failing to fully achieve what the project aimed for. A few have failed completely. Amazingly, when the leaders and stakeholders examine why the desired outcome was not fully achieved, or the initiative failed, the first reason given is always change management.

What exactly do we mean by change management, and why does it so often fail? I believe there are five key reasons. Each is an opportunity to reframe our understanding of change management so that the next time we go through this challenging process, we are prepared for the realities of what real change entails.

Reason 1: It’s misunderstood

REFRAME: It’s about changing behaviour to drive enhanced performance.

Change management traditionally has two key components: communication and learning. In other words, getting people to understand what they need to do differently, and then equipping them with the skills to do so. Unfortunately, these two activities often boil down to telling people what they need to do, and then sending them on a training course to show them how to do it. This method leaves a lot be desired.

A more sophisticated and realistic change management approach is to recognise that communication is a two-way process, requiring real engagement and dialogue in order to build a shared understanding and sense of ownership over the process. All too often, because of time pressures and the desire to get things done quickly, the necessary dialogue does not take place. As a result, staff are not invested in the process, and see it as something imposed on them.

Training is evolving, and now takes a more holistic approach, recognising that real learning (mastery) happens through practice on the job, after the initial training. It is not all absorbed in one go – it takes time!

Also, there is increased understanding that learning is not just about knowledge transfer; instead it involves learning to do things differently to shift long-term behaviour and habits. That means re-wiring our neural pathways and creating new ‘interpretive schema’ in our brains – new assumptions, values and frames of reference. Once our frame of reference changes, we are far more able to change our behaviour to suit the new reality. ?

Thus, it will not work just to give people new knowledge and skills – we have to give them time and opportunities to practise, and to reframe the entire situation.

We want the new skills and behaviours to become an ‘unconscious competence’. It takes quite a bit of cognitive effort to develop new habits through repeated practice until they reach this level.?When staff are under pressure, cognitive energy is required to stick to the new skill; what tends to happen is that people default back to the old way of working based on their previous levels of unconscious competence. This is the level where little or no thinking is required. Learning new ways of working is therefore a long-term process which needs to be sustained and practised in many different situations for it to stick.

Unfortunately, the default approach is to train and leave. We do not recognise that the real learning only begins post training. It is because of this lack of persistence that much of the value in the change is not realised in organisations.

The key to understanding successful change management is that until you have embedded a shift in behaviour, you have not achieved the change outcome. A new operating model, process, system or culture ultimately will not create the intended value until people are doing the right things consistently.

Also, change is more than communication and learning.

Key reframing question: ‘What shifts in behaviour may we expect when we implement the new system or process?’

Reason 2: Change is not seen as strategic

REFRAME: It’s about changing mindsets (perceptions) of how value is created.

Good strategies aim to define:

·??????where organisations should focus their energy, effort and resources, and

·??????what things they should do differently to

o??optimise their assets, and

o??create optimum sustainable value.

Realisation of these strategies requires that leaders and staff change by stopping doing certain things (focus), begin to do new things (learn), and then do things differently over time (adapt their behaviour) to realise the next level of value.

Any planned change either reinforces the strategic focus, core value drivers and ways of working, or aims to do so. Behavioural economics highlights that people only do what they perceive as valuable; therefore, change management must connect to the core value drivers of your product, service or asset. This will ensure that whatever change is implemented is sustained, since it reinforces or is reinforced by the strategy and the way in which value is created. People will not shift their behaviour or sustain their shift in behaviour if the change is not perceived to create value by driving organisational, team or personal performance.

Change management has to be linked to an organisation’s overall strategy, and has a huge role to play in shifting or reinforcing an organisation’s culture (‘how we do things around here’). A culture is anchored in the organisation’s business model, purpose and value drivers, and orients people’s behaviour, so that they behave in a certain way for optimum business performance and outcomes.

Culture thus frames the mindset of people. Mindsets are value centric; they are based on how people perceive the value of any given behaviour. Therefore any change, even a simple change, by default must consider the strategy and core business value drivers. If it does not, it is likely to go against the embedded culture and ways of working. If the change is a significant business transformation, it involves resetting the definition of what is valuable to an organisation, and therefore how the culture and mindsets need to shift to create the next level of value.

The strategic framing of change around value is also crucial in understanding how we are aiming to shift mindsets. Change often fails because the way it is framed does not provide the strategic lens; it fails to define how the planned change will drive value, as defined in the strategy.

A key consideration in every change therefore needs to be, ‘Is this of strategic value, and if not, should we be implementing this change?’

Key reframing question: ‘What is the impact of this change on how value will be defined and perceived going forward, and how will this affect how value is perceived today?’

Reason 3: Leaders don’t lead

REFRAME: If it is not worth leading, it is not worth changing.

Effectively, change is the execution of the strategy, and it is well known that execution is where most strategies fail. For this reason, the term change management is potentially misleading, since it implies that change is something mechanistic, and that with the right systems and processes, the desired shifts in behaviour will just happen.

Management is primarily about maintaining the status quo; creating the right systems and disciplines to deliver a consistent and predictable outcome. In any successful change, good management disciplines will certainly play a role in embedding the change over the long term. However, real change is not about management; it is about challenging the status quo, getting people to stop doing things a certain way and start doing things differently.

True organisational change therefore requires leadership. It takes leadership to recognise that every change should be aligned with the strategy, and to make critical strategic choices about the behaviours that needs to stop or be done differently. Strategic conversations notoriously generate lists of things to do; however, effective execution requires the capacity and ability to say ‘NO’ to those things that will not add value or will potentially add less value.

Saying ‘no’ takes courage and effort! It means acknowledging previously bad decisions, upsetting some stakeholders and making deliberate choices where some options are dropped and excluded. It is here where leadership is needed. It is the one part of change that cannot be outsourced to project teams, a change management stream, middle management or external parties.

It is in the definitive ‘no’ that accountability and ownership are defined. Accountability and ownership are significant predictors of successful change. Also, saying ‘no’ very quickly reveals how important the option is in relation to other priorities. Too often, changes are allowed to drift along in a state of unrealistic optimism, in the assumption that change can be implemented without clear priorities and focused energy. Leaders need to take ownership of the process and be accountable. They need to challenge the status quo, demand focus and accountability from staff, and ensure that the changed behaviour is sustained over the long term. ?

The above strategic execution view of change highlights the leadership capacity required to continuously adapt plans to match a dynamic environment, make decisions, follow through on the decision, hold people to account, have many difficult conversations, mediate and resolve conflict, and inspire people to carry on in often difficult and challenging circumstances. This is what leadership is!

Key reframing question: ‘Who is leading this change? If it is not being led, is the change important; should we not stop it?’

Reason 4: We underestimate the effort required

REFRAME: Let’s be real about the effort required to obtain the benefits.

Probably the most common error in implementing organisational changes is optimism, and the focus on positive outcomes rather than on the effort that will be required by leaders and staff to make the required changes to achieve the benefits.

As mentioned in Article 1 in this series, real change requires significant cognitive capacity (effort) to embed new ways of thinking and behaving. It starts with the effort to agree on what will be implemented (dialogue, consultation) and then involves effectively prioritising and say ‘no’ to things that have to be stopped to allow for the change. In my experience as a change lead, the hardest aspect of change is not taking on the new, but letting go of the old.

Making choices requires real effort. In the initial phase of the process, expedience often dictates how planning and aligning of stakeholders is conducted, and what people will have to give up to make space for the new. Hard choices tend to be glossed over in the general optimism about the new strategy, system, process or operating model. That optimism can be misleading – change is hard.

It is essential to invest time in the planning and alignment process, because once we begin with implementation there is limited capacity to re-engage effectively and align on what we have to stop doing or do differently. In this area, I advise slow down to speed up. If it takes a long time to agree, so be it – in fact, a long consultation and discussion period is often a key predictor for successful implementation and change. Thorough preparation ensures that we have thought through the process and that everyone is aligned on outcomes and changes. Once the change is underway, we will not have the same opportunities to make changes, adapt or discuss.

A second key error regarding change is the assumption that significant organisational change can happen on the side of someone’s desk; ?that is, that you can carry on with business as usual without freeing up sufficient dedicated capacity. This applies particularly to leadership capacity at all levels to shape and lead the change.

Creating a realistic view of the capacity required is a key factor in setting up a change project for success. The assessment of the capacity required needs to focus not only on what is planned, but also on the ‘as-is’, in order to understand the gap, and what level of effort will be required to shift from the ‘as-is’ to the ‘to be’. Often there are too many over-optimistic assumptions of the as-is, without sufficient engagement and participation from those operating in the current state, whose input will provide a more realistic view of the change process, and help set realistic expectations.

There are very real benefits of engaging with those who operate in the current system and who are likely to be most impacted by the change. This sort of engagement gives leaders the opportunity to manage unrealistic expectations and stress the effort that will be required. Creating realistic expectations early on is key to managing all stakeholders’ expectations, helping people to understand and own the change.

As one engages around a more realistic view of the change, the difficult alignment conversations will take place at a sufficiently early stage. Getting these conversations in early in crucial. ?Now is your time to engage all levels of leadership on the potential pitfalls and align on what needs to stop or be done differently. If you delay these conversations, you may be forced to halt the process of change once it has started in order to get people to understand and co-operate. You end up pushing forward and trying to sell the change; that is, do it to the people, rather than with the people.

Key reframing question: ‘How much effort is required, by who, and to obtain what outcome?’

Reason 5: Limited integration

Reframe: We need a shared definition of success (i.e., the ultimate outcome, not just the output).

In trying to change behaviour, organisations often make the mistake of thinking that behaviour change is the inevitable outcome of the right communication and learning. In fact, behaviour – our mindsets and how we do things – is shaped by far more that hearing what we ought to do and being shown how to do it. Behaviour is an outcome of multiple systemic factors or levers, over which leaders have some control and influence.

Typically, in change programmes, multiple workstreams aim to design and implement changes to these systemic levers, i.e., to organisational structures, processes, systems, measurement and performance criteria, communication, leadership, stakeholder alignment and learning opportunities. What is often lacking is a shared view of how these levers contribute to the desired changes in behaviour and how value is perceived, created and delivered.

For efficiency, planning tends to happen in functional streams, with change seen as one of those streams, rather than a shared outcome of the overall programme. The result is a bottom-up and siloed approach to planning, with a focus on the outputs of the project rather than the outcome. ?An output is the result of an activity – for example, a new operating system is installed and used. ?An outcome is the value of the output for the company – for example, customer orders are processed more quickly, thus enhancing customer satisfaction and retention. ?Thus the output is the enabler for the desired change, and needs to be framed as a component of the success, not the definitive measure of success.

To create a shared sense of ownership over the process that will lead to ideal outcomes, integration and alignment across streams is needed. This requires leadership effort in listening to and aligning the efforts of all teams. It also requires a shift in the mindset and management philosophy of project leaders, who need to see themselves as leading the change.

Effort is also needed to integrate change efforts with the business-as-usual activities of the broader business. Bringing business leadership along and making them part of the planning process is crucial; leaders at all levels need to participate in defining success early on in the process, to ensure a sense of shared ownership and alignment.

Key reframing question: ‘What is our shared definition of success? Who needs to share in owning the definition of success?’

Change management – no silver bullet

Anyone who has worked in business transformation knows there is no silver bullet for implementing change successfully. As we develop our skills and knowledge as practitioners, we need to continuously enhance our knowledge and ability to deliver meaningful and sustainable change.

Change in business is now continuous, and the complexity of change is increasing. ?Change management requires a multi-disciplinary approach and the appropriate level of leadership engagement. Engaged leaders also need to reflect on the process, and understand what enabled them to become more effective at shaping and transforming their organisations.

It is also a field where there is increasing research on how we learn and change people’s behaviour. A lot of this is happening in adjacent fields of sociology, anthropology and social psychology, where multi-disciplinary teams work to solve social problems such as substance abuse and addiction.??Lessons learned in these disciplines should challenge the perception that change is about the ‘soft’ stuff in business; in reality it often represents the most complex component of any programme and, if not appropriately addressed, is most often responsible for derailing programmes. Leaders who understand and embrace this complexity are more likely to develop real solutions and successfully implement organisational change.

John Brodie is a Senior Executive at MAC Consulting, a registered Clinical Psychologist, with over 20 years’ experience as a Management Consultant, having worked extensively in Europe, the Middle East and Africa on multiple strategic business transformation and change programmes.