CHAPTER 16 The Process of Successful Change: How is it Achieved?
The authors and Macdonald Associates have been involved in many change programmes with many different organisations around the world. Associates have worked with schools, churches, international mining companies, hospitals, financial organisations, voluntary organisations, indigenous communities, local authorities, manufacturing, public utilities – in fact, a wide range across the private, public and voluntary sectors.
In all of this work we have provided advice and support to the leadership and members of such organisations. Such advice has been intended to encourage creativity by helping to create a set of conditions whereby people are able to express their potential through work.
Amongst the many projects and programmes in which we have been involved, not surprisingly some have been more successful than others. This chapter concentrates not so much on content but process. It draws on our experience to summarise the main elements in a successful change or transformation process. It is not a rigid prescription and depends upon specific circumstances, and we accept that it cannot always be followed exactly. However, it does provide a framework that, if followed is likely to lead to success. Where the process has been followed carefully and with attention to detail, it has resulted in significant, positive change; in some cases exceeding expectations. Where the process has not been followed in this form, changes have been slower and have yielded less significant gains. The main argument we are making is that there needs to be considerable attention paid to the process. A good idea can be ruined by poor implementation. Throughout this book we have emphasised the importance of understanding social process. This understanding applies no less to the social process of implementing change.
A change process or transformation can occur without specific outside consultancy. There is, however, always a need for specialist advice and considered reflection, from either an external or internal source. The nature of the work and the demands it places on the organisation’s leadership makes such an arrangement desirable. The process must be led by the leadership of the organisation or it will fail to achieve the purpose of the change programme. This will always require some degree of behaviour change by the leaders as individuals, so they demonstrate what is required and generate dissonance. Personal behaviour change is not easy; it takes time. The leader will have to provide his or her input into the redesign of the significant systems of the organisation. Although this seems an obvious point, it is interesting to see that many change management processes are led by Human Resources and are not clearly owned by the executive leadership.
While all of this is going on, the leader must continue in his or her day job running the organisation. Much of our experience in such processes involves external consultancy. There are advantages to external advice, largely its independence and specific technical expertise. Also external advisers are not competitors for a potential career in the organisation. The advice can be considered and the relationship ended more easily, and the consultant never enters into a managerial authority relationship. In our work as consultants we endeavour to work in partnership with the leadership.
Two phrases we do not allow a consultant to utter are ‘if I were you’ or ‘you should’. We recognise executive authority; who has the authority to make the final decision over structure, systems or removal from role. Our advice tends to be analytical and predictive rather than coming in and doing the work. If the partnership is not characterised by high trust between adviser (internal or external) and client, the process will fail or have at best a short-term impact. Applying a set of externally predetermined ideas will rarely, if ever, work unless the leadership has gained ownership of these ideas and helped to shape them in terms of the particular organisational application (see Box 16.1).
Because an external adviser may not be continuously available to members of the organisation, including the leader, Catie Burke has found that working with both an internal and external consultant is often useful. The internal adviser is present on a daily basis, and is required to learn the theories and processes we recommend, such that they can assist in the analytical process and help the leader and other members of the staff when questions arise.
The length and nature of this working relationship varies depending upon the circumstances. We do not favour two-, three- or six-month programmes with grand project titles. Such programmes or projects give the impression that there is a definitive start and finish time. We remember one surprised general manager who, when asked to work on some new systems, said; ‘Isn’t this what we pay you for?’ Our relationships tend to be longer-term but may vary significantly in intensity and level of involvement at any particular time. The fact that the relationship is one of active collaboration between consultant and manager does not mean it is purely pragmatic. The consultant must bring a depth of knowledge that can predict which adaptations to principles will actually enhance the process and which will inhibit it.
Box 16.1 Two Types of Consultancy
In our experience there are two fundamental types of consultancy relationship:
SUPPORT AND ADVICE: The way that we have all worked is to offer advice and help the leadership create the Desired Culture. We seek to transfer knowledge and skills into the organisation and eventually create the situation where we are no longer needed, certainly not full time. This is a common clinical or therapeutic model that enables the client to do their work. This works best when the client(s) have the current potential to do the work but may be helped by technical expertise.
DEPENDENCY: Here the consultant wants to do the work. It works best when the client is incapable of the work and is not able to succeed without the ‘consultant’. Work is characterised not so much by advice but by large teams of consultants working together to tell the client what to do but also to look for more work. The purpose is to create dependence and secure a revenue stream. This model relies on fads, constantly re-badging and reselling content.
Box 16.2 Examples of Consultancy Relationships
There are many examples of these relationships. One example was the relationship between Wilfred Brown (chairman of Glacier Metals) and Dr Elliott Jaques at Glacier Metals (1947–1977). In the 1980s a major restructuring of CRA (now Rio Tinto) in Australia was led by Sir Roderick Carnegie supported by Jaques and internal consultants including Leigh Clifford (who became CEO of Rio Tinto), Jack Brady, Terry Palmer and Karl Stewart. When Palmer and Stewart moved to managing director roles, they built similar relationships externally with Macdonald and others to bring about very significant change, as has David Murray at the Commonwealth bank of Australia with Les Cupper as an internal adviser. There are many similar relationships involving both internal and external advisers to CEOs such as Burke who worked with John Fielder who became President of Southern California Edison along with his internal adviser Dr Dan Smith. These relationships are critical since it is helpful for a CEO to have someone with whom to test ideas, where that person is not a competitor. The function of the adviser is to give honest, direct feedback and evaluate these ideas against a set of principles and concepts.
The conceptual material in this book, as well as Jaques’ theories, need to be seen as a discipline; that we must attempt to be rigorous in definition and analysis, not merely pragmatic or political. An impediment to such discipline is the adoption of the transformation process as a belief system. This is partly because all social processes have an emotional content and partly because of the ease with which belief becomes a substitute for understanding. The concepts and models or principles then move from a set of predictive tools to be tested and become a dogmatic belief system with evangelists and sceptics. Failures are perceived from both sides as proving their case. If a change fails to produce the desired result for the sceptic, it proves the belief system is flawed; for the evangelist it has been deliberately undermined by the sceptic.
When the debate becomes suffused with intransigence and emotion the distinction between content and process becomes blurred. As with systems, it is important to be clear whether the outcome (or lack of it) suggests inherent problems with content (the ideas and concepts) or problems with how it has been implemented: if the sound coming from my violin playing is alarming and tuneless, is it because the instrument is faulty or simply that I have never learnt to play the violin with sufficient skill?
Box 16.3 Failure Predicted and Change Implemented
Catie Burke had the experience of working with a Departmental Vice President where he and his staff designed a Performance Assessment system based on her analysis using the concepts in this book. It worked so well, he recommended it for use corporate wide. The task of designing the corporate system was given to the HR department, which assigned the task at too low a level. The result resembled what had been done in the Department, but with significant (and negative) changes.
Burke wrote a memo to the VP listing several things she thought would go wrong with the new system. The VP recognised the systems were different but thought the corporate system could still work for his Department. Burke left the country and was out of communication for a month. When she returned, her voice mail was full – the VP wants to see you as soon as you get back. She went into the office where the VP was visibly upset and angry. His first words were, ‘Don’t tell me I told you so’. All but one of the predictions had come true, and the people in the Department who had experienced a system that worked were furious as was the VP. Because the workforce could send e-mails anonymously, the VP showed her his favourite, ‘This system proves (the VP) either has no guts or no brains.’ He kept it as a reminder of his mistake.
‘I want this fixed, NOW.’
‘But it won’t conform to the corporate system.’
‘I don’t care. I want this done right.’
A team from the Department was created, led by a very able General Manager in a IV role. Burke helped the team in their analysis, and they designed a highly workable system that was deemed fair and effective, even by those whose assessments were not a good as they expected.
The Moral Is: The ability to predict failure based on the concepts in this book can lead to positive change over time.
Successful Change Process
The following section outlines the process, not as dogma but as a set of steps or criteria that can be used to examine where and why there might be problems. The process outlined below has, in our experience, been successful in terms of results over time. It is written assuming the positive relationship described above is in place between a person (or persons) in executive roles (the leadership) and those in support roles (that is, consultants providing specialist advice).
STEP 1: ESTABLISH A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CEO AND ADVISER(S)
These relationships can occur and develop in many ways and over different periods of time. Our experience is, however, that a direct, working relationship between adviser and the line executive is essential. This may not always be with the overall CEO. If not, then the scope of change will be limited to the area of discretion of that line manager. For example, it may occur in a division, a site or sector. If this is the case then at least those in the line roles above must be supportive if not driving the process.
Whilst the requirement for the change process to be led by the line manager may seem to be a very obvious point, it is surprising how many so called change programmes do start and continue under a specialist banner, for example, HR or IT. They are doomed to failure or at best slow progress until the CEO (or equivalent) in a level IV role or above not only owns it, but also is seen to own it. It is virtually impossible for someone in a level III role to drive significant change because the role does not carry the necessary integrative authority. This is not a negative representation for the person in a level III role and does not refer to that person’s capability. If a highly capable person in a level III role does drive change without executive support, again by definition, they will have to use power, not authority. If we assume, however, that the relationship with the CEO has been established, then several critical issues need to be addressed.
WHAT IF OTHER EXECUTIVES ARE NOT ALIGNED?
Teamwork is critical and the CEO must lead a functional, productive team. Time and effort must be put into this alignment and, if particular team members cannot support the process, it is important that they leave. This need not be done punitively. In one particular instance we experienced, an honest difference of opinion led to a very dignified exit with each party demonstrating mutual respect.
If external consultants are employed, their work must be complementary to internal consultants. A change programme must rest on common principles and language. Different models and conflicting advice will hinder the process. Essentially the problem is the same as that of alignment in the CEO’s team and must be addressed.
WHAT IF OTHER PARTIES ARE NOT ALIGNED?
Depending on the organisation there may be other parties to consider, for example trade unions. What is their view? How are their concerns addressed? This is a critical issue and must be addressed in the context specific to the organisation. We have worked in organisations where third-party response has been as diverse as literal, violent opposition or highly constructive engagement. How the third-party issue is addressed is, of course, a decision of the leadership of the organisation. It is, however, a decision that must be made to avoid confusion and uncertainty through the change process.
HOW BEST TO ENGAGE THE BOARD?
If the change process is significant it is crucial that the board knows about it, knows what is trying to be achieved and at least in general terms how it is to be achieved. If this is not the case, then early costs are difficult to accept. For example, during initial stages there may be a reduction in productivity, training costs may be high and there may even be some industrial unrest. This is critical work for the board, as explained in Chapter 11.
It is inevitable that any significant change process will generate comment. For an organisation that regularly appears in the financial press, there is no guarantee the commentary will be positive. It is essential that the Board be fully informed about, and in support of, a significant change program within the organisation. It is the work of the CEO to keep the Board informed.
The process of addressing these critical issues is helped considerably by the next step.
STEP 2: ARTICULATE WHAT THE CEO IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE
Often this articulation is called a ‘vision’ or ‘mission,’ sometimes both are present. A vision is, by definition, an hallucination, and while it may seem to be a good thing to display publicly what the CEO believes the organisation should be aspiring to, it is our experience that in most instances, such public declarations serve little constructive purpose. Statements of vision or mission that begin with ‘We are …’ or ‘We do …’ pose the potential problem of the CEO having to explain from the witness stand why the organisation about which he or she made the claim, is, in fact, not doing what it claimed it was.
These declarations are often vague, even vapid, watered down truisms or platitudes. They are often hard either to agree or disagree with or to know specifically what needs to be done and who is to achieve them. Our experience has been that sometimes the CEO will have a clear picture in his or her mind but will be frustrated that it is not obvious to everyone else. We do not use terms as grandiose as ‘mission’ or ‘vision’ (except in the Church), but prefer ‘purpose’, ‘goals’ or ‘objectives’ because such terms are clearer and less abstract. Often it is useful to express this in very simple behavioural terms, for example, ‘a place where people want to come to work’, ‘where people are listened to and their contributions recognised’. It is important in this process to take into account the following critical issues. (See also Creating a Culture in Chapter 12).
HOW TO MAKE AN INTEGRATED STATEMENT?
Any process of change should integrate the technical, commercial and social processes. As has been discussed, they are intrinsically related within an organisation, and any significant change process must recognise this relationship. It is not helpful to drive a technical and commercial change process such as six-sigma 1 unless the potential social process change and its impact is clear to everyone. A structural reorganisation (social process) is not helpful unless it is linked to a business case and how the new organisation structure will better achieve the application of the technical speciality of the business.
HOW MUCH VARIATION IS THERE THROUGHOUT THE ORGANISATION?
Are some areas good/bad examples? Are some divisions or departments currently near or a long way from achieving these goals?
WHAT IS THE OVERALL BUSINESS CONTEXT?
Is it obvious that change is needed or can it be argued that ‘if we aren’t broke why fix us?’ The answers to this will clearly have significant impact on the timing and speed of the process (see step 5).
STEP 3: HOW DO THE CONCEPTS OF SYSTEMS LEADERSHIP THEORY HELP?
It is critical that there is real and in-depth understanding by the executive leadership of how and why these concepts and tools can form a pathway to achieving the goals. This statement may seem to be a self-evident truth, but it contains a deeper issue. The possession and application of a real and in-depth understanding of the concepts and the tools leads to an appreciation by the CEO of the work he or she must do if the change process is to be a success. It has been our experience that the removal from role of people who do not have the capability to perform the work of the role has been the prime determinant of success in significant change programmes. This is the work that confronts the CEO with his or her team members. An understanding of the process makes clear the absolute necessity of these personally difficult decisions and actions.
The construct that mental processing ability is a component of human capability that does not change in adulthood is difficult for many to accept. A common belief, which contradicts this idea, states everyone is able to achieve whatever he or she wants, provided he or she is prepared to work at it hard enough. This idea has had people sent to training courses to overcome a fundamental inability to perform the work of a role. If it becomes obvious in the change process that a person is not and will not be capable of the work, no amount of ‘development’ or ‘coaching’ will help.
If a member of the leadership team introducing the material upon which this book is based as part of a change process is unable, for his or her own good reasons, to support the use of the material, he or she should leave and be given the opportunity to do so with dignity.
HOW BEST TO CREATE A PRODUCTIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CONSULTANTS?
Until this understanding exists, the change process cannot be owned by the executive and what we have found is that the change programme is put forward as a technical exercise in which questions are passed to the ‘specialist’, usually Human Resources, with or without the advice of the consultant. This process almost always leads to the ‘belief system/dogma’ approach discussed above. The critical issues are outlined below.
HOW TO AVOID THE PROCESS BEING A ‘BLACK BOX’?
We have seen executives reluctant to devote the time to understand the concepts and saying ‘Oh well, that’s HR’ or ‘That’s why we pay consultants. Just fix it’.
There must be education and engagement at the highest levels. This is not just teaching but dialogue and discussion which may result in changes in both content and presentation which relates to the critical issues associated with the specific organisation:
Box 16.4 Teaching the CEO and his Direct Reports
After some examination of the ideas herein, plus a test of the consultant’s analysis in one small division, the CEO of a large department decided to implement these ideas. He did not feel he or his staff fully understood the concepts and relationships. One of the authors suggested they meet with two of his most trusted direct reports – one young, and recognised as someone who would move up the hierarchy. The other was fully capable in role, experienced and highly knowledgeable regarding the Department and its history. Both were able and willing to challenge the CEO and the ideas.
Given the workload each carried, the CEO decided they would meet with the consultant one afternoon a week to explore, test and consider the concepts and theory. They did this for 12 weeks without fail. At that time, the CEO decided he would teach all his direct reports the concepts, such that they could understand and support the changes. He decided to teach the ideas himself, though the consultant was present to help out. The team studied, discussed, argued and learned how the ideas might work in their organisation during two three-day off-site workshops. The two direct reports who had learned the ideas in the earlier sessions were invaluable in explaining to their peers why they thought the ideas would be useful and improve their operations.
Later, the CEO’s direct reports taught the ideas to their direct reports, again with the assistance of the consultant. This cascading on the ideas made possible major change and improvements in the Department.
HOW TO INTEGRATE SYSTEMS LEADERSHIP THEORY WITH OTHER MODELS AND CONCEPTS?
It is highly unlikely that a CEO or equivalent will have reached their position without having their own ideas based on their own experience. Others in the organisation will have their own concepts … It is important not to be overly precious, pedantic or dogmatic. It is the rigour and discipline itself that is important and some terms may be changed. These may be highly symbolic. One organisation did not like terms such as level or stratum. The concern was allayed by using general role titles and describing the type of work. Another leader insisted on no name for the process of change, which was highly successful because the organisation did not use technical or general terms. This ability to integrate without losing the integrity of the concepts is at the heart of the relationship and makes the difference between successful transition and imposed compliance.
Once there is an understanding and articulation of the change process, at least amongst the CEO’s team and support staff/consultants, then it is important to take the next step.
STEP 4: CARRY OUT A DESKTOP STRUCTURAL REVIEW
This is a paper exercise in that it requires the CEO team, with advice, to consider whether the current structural arrangements are appropriate and what needs to change to achieve the new purpose and goals. Using stratified systems theory and systems leadership theory an analysis can be made with regard to the critical issues:
• What is the work?
• How to structure the required work?
• How to address the gap between what is required and what exists?
• What if there is not sufficient clarity of role relationships and appropriate authority?
• How to understand the use of power and assess where it is being applied?
There should be shared understanding with the team of the change required and what the structure might look like in terms of levels of work, operations, services and support roles and other structural concepts discussed earlier (see also Chapter 11).
At the same time or just after, it is useful to carry out the next step.
STEP 5: CARRY OUT A SYSTEMS AND SYMBOLS AUDIT
This process is described in detail in the next chapter but is essentially an organisational health check. A review and interviews are carried out by an external consultant to determine, for example, how people view the leadership and systems. This is done by the careful collection of mythologies, linking them to how they position the systems and symbols of the organisation and the behaviour of leaders on the values continua (honesty, trust, love, respect for human dignity, fairness and courage). The audit identifies different cultures and their uniting mythologies (stories about the organisation that underpin value judgements). Observations are made about internal consistency, for example, safety slogans visible around the site whilst extinguishers are missing and exits are blocked, or there is poor housekeeping, litter and waste during an apparent cost-cutting process.
Critical issues are:
• How to ensure that this process is explained and authorised by the leadership so that consultants are not seen as spies or the police. It may be better not to call it an audit but a review.
• How to avoid this being seen as if it is a survey based on statistical results. It is a process of interpretation where one person may have highly significant and insightful views and observations.
The desktop structural review and systems and symbols audit thus provide the data to check:
1. Is organisational practice currently internally consistent? Is it doing what it is intended to do?
2. To what extent is organisational practice working for or against the purpose and goals of the organisation?
As a consequence of this, the next step is for the CEO.
STEP 6: THE CEO FORMULATES A PROGRAMME FOR CHANGE
Bearing in mind other business/organisational issues and the current context, what is the order of change and who will do what?
Critical issues here are:
• How far down the organisation is the diagnosis and the process shared? This may be influenced by the extent of information shared from the structural review and systems and symbols audit.
• How to ensure the proper choice of people who will engage in this process? This will be highly symbolic and indicate the seriousness of the process.
• What qualitative and quantitative measures are to be used to measure the progress and judge success against cost?
• The process for review of progress and change pace or direction if needed?
The next part(s) of the process depends, of course, on the nature and extent of the programme including what are judged by the CEO to be priority areas. Certainly steps 7, 8 and 9 could well proceed in parallel, and the order in which they are presented here is not any preferred order.
STEP 7: TRAIN
It is important that people understand what is expected and why. The Working Together course described in Chapter 19 is helpful as it combines context setting with knowledge and experiential learning. It is essential that courses are run top-down and are co-led, that is with internal course leaders and an external consultant/trainer. It provides an opportunity to discuss the business plan and important information about how the change program forms a part of that plan. As a result, people may choose not to be a part of this process and so will change roles or organisations.
It is critical to train internal co-presenters (train the trainer). Although the roles of the two co-presenters are different, the internal co-presenter must be able to demonstrate knowledge of the concepts and be able to present the business case.
STEP 8: RESTRUCTURE
The extent of this process will obviously depend upon the gap between what is needed and what exists. A restructuring can be a very extensive exercise, and the time it takes will depend upon the resources devoted to it. The new structure must be based on the work required to achieve the purpose of the organisation and the distribution of the complexity of that work, the levels of work. Authority necessary to do the work of the role, and the work of each role, needs to be articulated using a simple effective role description format. The process’s success is dependent upon the obvious leadership of the relevant executive head with support from internal and external experts.
1. It is critical that the process is not dogmatic or overly bureaucratic, though it must be disciplined.
2. It is also critical that a differentiation is made between the work required in a new role and the capability of the current role incumbent. All the roles in the new structured are reformulated, even though some may look similar to roles in the pre-existing structure. There will be significant differences, so it is counter-productive to refer to roles by people’s names, for example, ‘what about Jim’s role?’ or to have people to ‘apply for their old job’. When it comes to selecting people for the new role, it is most important that there be no assumption a person, in what seems to be a similar role, is able to perform the work of the new role to the required standard. We have seen a number of otherwise excellent restructuring programs fail because the assumption above was made and people appointed on this basis.
STEP 9: SYSTEMS DESIGN
In Chapters 12, 13 and 17 the significance of this work is explained. In Chapter 17, we articulate a very practical process for designing systems. Our experience and a consideration of the descriptors of complexity in levels of work (Chapter 9) suggest this work is both complex and demanding of resources, primarily time. It is so highly significant because of the influence that systems have on behaviour and their potentially symbolic role.
Therefore, the critical issues in the process are:
• How to have small teams work on systems (four or five team members as a maximum), whilst taking input from others.
• How to ensure that there is sufficient capability in the design team so that the systems are effective, efficient and that they are designed quickly. The key systems to examine are:
◦ safety
◦ performance management
◦ fair treatment.
These systems affect all employees and the latter two are fundamentally about managerial judgement, which is at the heart of a meritocracy.
The key to the analysis is to look at the purpose of systems and to review all current systems in terms of differentiation or equalisation. Significant gains can quickly be made by changing systems that currently differentiate for no good reason to equalising systems, for example, car parking, uniforms, canteens or benefits. Similar gains can be made the other way (equalisation to differentiation), for example, performance pay from fixed hourly rates.
It is often helpful quickly to initiate some symbolic (but not cosmetic) system changes to demonstrate intent. Some systems may have irritated people for years and yet are relatively easy to change, for example, authorisation for stores, car parking, and good safety equipment – even, in one case, decent work boots.
STEP 10: REMOVAL FROM ROLE
This step is absolutely critical. We have seen many change programmes slowed, halted or fall into disrepute because, despite good structure and systems proposals, people are left in roles when they cannot effectively carry out the work and everyone knows it. This is especially true for those in leadership roles. This is perhaps the most difficult element of all. In successful change programmes we have often seen between a 30% and 40% change in leadership roles within a year. Some of the role changes may be by choice; others by requirement. It is rare that positive behaviour change will occur amongst those in level I or II roles if they see poor leaders left in the roles higher up. The symbolism of and dissonance produced by the removal from the organisation of a manager who has regularly and consistently used box D systems (that is, unauthorised and counter-productive systems as explained in Chapter 13) and behaviour can be highly advantageous to the overall change process.
Any person who attempts to perform his or her work to achieve the purpose of the organisation and does so to a high standard while being subjected to poor leadership behaviour, the exercise of power and poor decision-making must resolve the internal psychological conflict these contradictions generate the entire time he or she is in the employment environment. It is little wonder that poor leadership is so destructive as well as wasteful of resources and human capability.
The critical issue is, of course, how to manage this process of removal from role in a fair and courageous way. It is important to differentiate between those who change roles (or leave) because they do not have the capability but are genuinely well regarded and those who leave because they are bullies or are operating in unauthorised or unproductive ways. The former should leave with dignity; the latter should be dismissed. Of course this distinction may not be so clear, but a sound understanding of mythologies about the work the person has (or has not) been doing will inform such decisions. There should be an opportunity for good employees to change role with dignity, which may require a period of training and the opportunity to build the knowledge and skills needed in the new role. The choice of taking this path must lie with the individual concerned. The critical issue here is not to use training as an excuse to avoid facing the hard truth or in the hope that it will improve mental processing ability.
There may well be a subculture of people who oppose the changes and are not aligned with it. The rest of the organisation will be watching this group carefully to see how they are treated. This is a key leadership issue and relates directly to performance management. Many initial opponents have in time not only been won over but have also become enthusiasts. The critical issue is whether they are doing the work of the role. Removal from role of a poor performer who also opposes change can be very positively significant and symbolic. Retaining a critic who is very productive may also be positive.
Despite the criticality of this step we have seen this avoided because it is too difficult, especially at higher levels. It is surprising how simple it seems to cut numbers, that is, objectify the loss of jobs lower down, whilst leaving a person in a level IV, V or VI role who is clearly not capable of the work of the role, or who uses power to obstruct the process.
We have found it advantageous to provide the members of an organisation with the option of leaving with the payment of full benefits during a significant change programme. People have their own deep-seated mythologies and established personal relationships that they need to retain to be who they are. These may conflict with the fundamental constructs of the change programme we discuss here. Under these circumstances the preferable outcome may be for them to leave with dignity and fairness.
STEP 11: CONTINUE TRAINING THROUGH THE ORGANISATION
In our experience it is important to take the training programmes about the change process, the reason for it, the concepts underlying it and the opportunities it presents through the organisation, not to stop at the top. Courses may differ in length or content but it must be clear these differences have a work or business reason. The obvious similarity between courses for all employees helps in several ways:
• It reinforces common language.
• It helps build a culture (people at all levels can discuss their experiences).
• It is a positive symbol of equalisation.
There are, however, two critical issues:
A. How to determine change? What is the purpose of the training?
There needs to be demonstrated attempts at change in behaviour by people who have been through training. The worst comment made on a course is ‘I wish my boss had gone on this’ – when the boss already has.
On the other hand, behavioural change does not result simply from training. As we discussed; behavioural change is driven by the exposure a person has to the example of leadership behaviour. ‘Don’t worry if your children do not do what you tell them; they are watching you all the time.’ It is even more powerfully driven by systems, the organisational analogue of human behaviour, and symbols, the visual manifestation of organisation behaviour.
It is completely unrealistic to expect behavioural change to result from a training course where the content is directed toward an increase in knowledge. It makes sense to set an examination after such a course to test the knowledge gained. A training course, or courses, designed to result in behavioural change needs to incorporate demonstrations of the behaviour required (and not required) along with the opportunity to practice the desired behaviours.
The form of training courses we recommend, such as Working Together, are experiential with opportunities to try new behaviours and learn from the results. No matter how well such a course is designed and run, however, it is unrealistic to expect changed behaviour to be maintained and built upon if the leadership does not demonstrate that its behaviour, systems and symbols support those changes.
Forming communities of practice within the organisation after training can also be very helpful as individuals confront situations and issues where it is not clear how the theory applies, or should be applied. Having a group of peers to turn to with questions can be very helpful as long as they also have access to others in the organisation who are more expert in the application of the theory.
B. What if the course becomes ritualistic?
The course must not become a substitute for change. That is, we must avoid; ‘we have nearly finished our change programme as 90% have been through the course’. Such training is at best ritualistic, and at worst destructive because the organisation is demonstrating, through the training course, that its leadership does know the way it is leading its people, but is wilfully choosing not to do so.
Keep in mind that training must be on-going as people change roles and new people are brought into the organisation. Refresher training may also be useful.
STEP 12: SYSTEM TRAINING, DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
System design and implementation takes time, and it is critical to select and train people to do the work of systems design and implementation. This is high-level work requiring high-level capability. The leadership of the organisation must then select those systems whose redesign will most support the change programme and have them done first. There needs to be processes put in place that give measures of the effect of the change programme so that it can be readily monitored. Some of these, such as the change in the number of reporting levels or the number of people who have attended training will be simple. Others such as the reduction in processing time for a set of transactions will be more difficult.
However good the system design is, it must involve training in the knowledge and skills needed in the new system and its implementation. This is an essential, but often overlooked part of the process. The critical issues here are:
HOW TO ENSURE THAT SYSTEMS ARE SEEN AND EXPERIENCED TO BE OWNED IN THE LINE?
If people systems are, or are seen to be, owned by ‘HR’ or information systems by ‘IT’, it is unlikely that the purpose of the system is directed toward the achievement of the objectives of line management. If the purpose is correctly directed, ownership of the system by a service function will lead to it being subverted to that function to the detriment of the users. We have seen this result in long, protracted wars breaking out between users and apparent owners.
HOW TO BUILD CONTROLS INTO SYSTEMS THAT PROVIDE INFORMATION FOR AUDITS AND REVIEWS?
Too many systems are implemented with no or poor controls. In our experience, system control is poorly understood. (For a more complete discussion of system control see Chapter 17.) A new system may be well designed and implemented, but without control will drift over time and may become counter-productive without the leadership’s recognition of the problem.
Further, it is important to identify priorities. Some systems are in urgent need of redesign; others can be left for later in the program of change and others can be abolished. It is important to link the systems work with the training and structural work so that they are seen to be interdependent.
STEP 13: REGULAR REVIEW
This is a critical step. The CEO, his or her team and relevant others must regularly review progress against expectation. This highlights the need:
1. to integrate the whole process;
2. to have good control and audit information;
3. to have good measures.
The review then will inform any decisions that may be required to rebalance the various components of the change programme, or for targeted intervention by the CEO to deal with a critical issue, for example, restructuring, systems work, training, implementation.
It is essential that this work continues through the programme and is visible to the people of the organisation. It is vital work of the executive leadership. If this leadership by the executive is not visible and undeniable, the way is left open for those within the organisation who perceive themselves as being under threat from the change programme to exercise power and subvert it.
The whole process can be summarised in terms of Figures 16.1 and 16.2. This process is not one that can always be followed exactly, nor can it be applied mechanistically. However, our experience is that leaving out steps or failing to address the critical issues hinders the change process and can be counter-productive.
Conclusion
If productive transformation is to occur, then the social process must be managed as carefully as the technical content and the business case. Benefits to the organisation must be explicit and demonstrable. In summary the main lessons we have learned are:
• To ensure that the CEO or equivalent leads the process. Establishing a relationship between advisers and CEO is critical. It must also be clear that the relationship is advisory, and the quality of the relationship must be such that the adviser is free to deliver bad news to the CEO. Note that the CEO’s job can be a lonely one; a good relationship with a capable consultant allows the CEO to use the consultant as a sounding board – not to give advice but to provide analysis and an external perspective.
• During a change process a CEO (or the executive leading the change) may leave and be replaced. We do not assume that the process will simply continue. A new CEO may have different priorities. If the Board understands and is supportive of the goals and process, it may well continue albeit with a different timescale, priority and certainly style. We have experience where the use of concepts and models has continued through a succession of CEOs (in one case four succeeding CEOs), and others where the new appointment has resulted in a different direction and the advice declined or put on the back burner. It is important to accept that an advisory relationship, which is based on mutual trust and respect, cannot be built overnight.
• The external consultants (and their team) must develop productive relationships with the CEO team. This is not likely if the consultants are perceived as ‘zealots’.
• Although people in HR roles may seem to be the obvious allies of this process, this is not always the case. Indeed, people in the HR roles may see external consultants as rivals or threats. Building a positive relationship and engaging with current concepts used by HR is important. At the other extreme the HR department may be seen as owners of the process and that the head of HR is the client. This must change over time or the whole process will likely be curtailed.
• It is important to understand the role of other external third parties, for example, union leadership. There may be vested interests in maintaining a distance between the organisation’s leadership and its employees. It is important to discuss a clear strategy of if and how such organisations relate to or are involved in the change process.
• It is often a good idea not to name the process or the teams involved. Although this paper describes it as a particular transformation process, if it gets named, it is easy for the work to be seen as separate from the business. It is also easy for it to be seen as a ‘project’ (which will end or go away or fizzle out).
• All through the process it is important to keep in touch with mythologies within the organisation. These may be positive or negative to the changes and will affect both training and pace of change. Most successful transformations have been supported by the advice from ‘wise counsel’, that is, a few people in the organisation who do have good reliable networks and who have sound judgement and are prepared to give honest feedback.
• In relation to this point, both internal and external members of the change process team must have a heightened awareness of their own behaviour. People will be actively testing for consistency and inconsistency and waiting for dissonant behaviour that might undermine confidence in the process.
• The pace of change will vary; timing is very important and clearly relates to resourcing. There is no fixed time for this process. However, it is likely to take more than a year even when conditions are favourable. Pacing will depend on many factors, resources as mentioned but also the current state of the organisation, capability of those involved and the perceived need for and benefit of change.
• Finally, it is important to build internal resources to sustain and improve on the change process. Although some consultancies might regard this as bad for business, it is not helpful or productive if the maintenance of the new way of working is seen to be dependent upon outsiders.
• There are several pitfalls the consultant, the leader and the process can drop into, and some key overall lessons. From a consultant’s perspective:
• It is essential to be disciplined but not dogmatic.
• Advise in such a way that avoids a class or even worse a caste system developing over levels of work: ‘she’s just a level I’, ‘he can’t do that; he’s a level III’ and so on. The concepts of capability and complexity must be distinguished. Never allow people to be labelled based on their level of work. This advice may seem trivial and self-evident, but it has been a problem of a greater or lesser extent in every organisation in which we have worked. The propensity for humans to classify other humans is astounding. In written history it goes as far back as Plato who had gold, silver, bronze people and slaves who were not people at all.
• Spend a significant amount of time and effort on systems analysis and what behaviour results from it. Especially use the differentiation/equalisation and system matrix models.
From the perspective of the executive/leadership:
• It is essential to demonstrate the process is owned by the line management.
• Establish the business case and link the change program to clear results, both qualitative and quantitative.
• Embed the work into the organisation with systems.
• Remove poor performers from roles.
All involved must keep in touch with mythologies as they develop and work to build new ones that place the behaviour, systems and symbols of the organisation at the positive end of the values continua. Be aware that the advisers and leaders will be constantly judged as to whether they are examples and role models of what they are saying is desired practice.