Change management, much like peeling an onion, involves uncovering multiple layers before reaching the core. Each layer peeled back in the journey of planning and implementing change reveals new insights about the organization and the stakeholders impacted by the change. This process is essential to understanding the full scope of the change, adapting strategies accordingly, and ensuring successful implementation. By examining the various facets of an organization, such as leadership capability, operational practices, and cultural traits, we can better navigate the complexities of change management. Let’s explore the analogy of peeling an onion in change management and some practical insights for transforming change outcomes.
What is the peeling the onion protocol and how does it work?
The Peeling the Onion Protocol is a change management strategy that involves gradually uncovering layers of resistance within an organization. By systematically addressing concerns and facilitating open dialogue, this protocol fosters understanding and acceptance of change, ultimately leading to smoother transitions and enhanced collaboration among team members.
Peeling the layers – each layer reveals a different facet of the organisation and how they may or may not be conducive to supporting the change. Here are some ‘layers’ you may want to examine.
Leadership and Managerial Capability in Managing Change
Effective change management begins with strong leadership. Leaders and managers play a crucial role in guiding the organization through the transition. Peeling back this layer reveals whether leaders are equipped with the necessary skills, knowledge, and attitudes to drive change. It also highlights their ability to inspire and mobilize their teams, communicate the vision effectively, and manage resistance. Assessing leadership capability is fundamental, as inadequate leadership can hinder the entire change process.
Operational and Business Practices
The next layer involves examining the organization’s operational and business practices. This includes evaluating current workflows, processes, and systems to identify areas that may need adjustment or improvement. Understanding how daily operations align with the proposed changes helps in anticipating potential disruptions and devising strategies to minimize them. Are existing practices consistent with the end state of the change? Are existing practices consistent? (or NA?) Why or why not? This layer also involves identifying key performance indicators (KPIs) that can measure the success of the change initiatives (https://thechangecompass.com/how-to-manage-a-multitude-of-change-initiatives-including-enterprise-wide/).
Change Governance Practices and Structure
Change governance refers to the frameworks and structures in place to manage and oversee change initiatives. Having the right governance structure ensures that the right oversight and decision making is setup to steer the change to success. Peeling back this layer involves assessing the effectiveness of existing governance mechanisms, such as steering committees, decision-making protocols, and accountability structures. Strong change governance ensures that change initiatives are well-coordinated, resources are allocated appropriately, and progress is monitored consistently. Weak governance, on the other hand, can lead to confusion, misalignment, and failure to achieve desired outcomes.
Key questions to ask here include such as:
Is there sufficient governance bodies in place at different levels of the organisation to support change?
Are there too many governance bodies?
Are decision-making processes clear and effective?
Are the right stakeholders involved in the relevant decision-making areas?
Engagement Channels
Effective engagement is critical in change management. This is more than just communication. This layer focuses on the channels and methods used to engage with stakeholders throughout the change process. Evaluating engagement channels helps in understanding how information is disseminated, feedback is collected, and concerns are addressed. It also highlights the effectiveness of internal communications and the role of external communications in managing stakeholder expectations and perceptions. What channels are most effective for what audience groups? Are there any gaps for engaging with all groups of stakeholders? (beyond just blasting emails or messages).
Change Champion Network
Change champions are resignated individuals within the organization who advocate for and support the change initiatives. Peeling back this layer involves identifying and empowering these champions. It also includes assessing their influence, credibility, and ability to motivate others. A strong network of change champions can facilitate smoother transitions by promoting buy-in, addressing resistance, and reinforcing positive behaviors. With the right nurturing and experience, an organisation-wide changechampion network can act to support a myriad of change initiatives.
System and Process Maturity
The maturity of systems and processes within an organization significantly impacts the success of change initiatives. This layer involves evaluating the current state of technological systems, process automation, and data management practices. Mature systems and processes provide a solid foundation for implementing changes efficiently and effectively. Conversely, immature systems may require significant upgrades or overhauls to support the desired changes.
Change Management Maturity
Change management maturity refers to the organization’s overall capability to manage change. Peeling back this layer involves assessing the maturity of change management practices, methodologies, and tools. Organizations with mature change management capabilities have established frameworks, experienced practitioners, and a culture that embraces change. In contrast, organizations with low maturity may struggle with inconsistencies, resistance, and a lack of structured approaches.
This layer examines the availability of resources and capacity to support change initiatives. It includes assessing the organization’s financial resources, human capital, and physical infrastructure. Adequate resources and capacity are essential for executing change plans, overcoming obstacles, and sustaining momentum. Insufficient resources can lead to delays, reduced quality, and increased stress on employees. This does not just include the resources required within the project itself, it points more to the impacted stakeholders and if they have the resources and capacity required to undergo the change.
Culture and Behavioral Traits
Organizational culture and behavioral traits play a significant role in how change is perceived and adopted. Peeling back this layer involves understanding the underlying values, beliefs, and behaviors that influence how employees respond to change. It also includes identifying cultural strengths that can be leveraged and cultural barriers that need to be addressed. A supportive culture fosters resilience, adaptability, and a positive attitude towards change.
Specifically:
Do existing behaviours and practices support the change end state?
Are there potentially inconsistent behaviours comparing the end state and the current state?
Beyond the specific behaviours required in the change initiative itself, how are these in alignment with broader cultural practices?
Key Takeaways from the Onion Analogy in Change Management
1. Each Layer Needs to Be Peeled Before Another Layer Can Be Peeled
The process of discovering and understanding the complexities of change cannot be rushed. Each layer provides valuable insights and learning opportunities that prepare the organization for the next layer of discovery. Skipping layers or rushing through the process can lead to incomplete assessments, overlooked challenges, and ineffective solutions. Patience and persistence are crucial for a thorough and successful change management journey.
Assessing and understanding each layer can take time. Data, both quantitative and qualitative, may be required to truly understand what each layer means and how it implicates the change.
2. How the Onion Appears May Not Be What It Is at Its Core
Initial perceptions of the organization may not reflect its true state. It takes time and effort to uncover the deeper issues, strengths, and opportunities. This requires a willingness to look beyond surface-level indicators and delve into the core aspects of the organization. Attention to detail and a commitment to uncovering the truth are essential for developing accurate and effective change strategies.
For example:
Are publically communicated and reinforced messages acted on?
Do leaders practice what they preach?
Do stakeholders commit to decisions already made? Or do they ignore it?
Is there clear alignment between different layers of the organisation? How is this done?
3. You May Discover Rotten Parts That Need to Be Replaced
During the process of peeling back layers, you may encounter parts of the organization that are severely inadequate or dysfunctional. These “rotten” parts may need to be replaced or significantly improved before the change can proceed. This could involve overhauling critical capabilities, restructuring teams, or implementing new systems. Recognizing and addressing these issues promptly is essential for ensuring the overall health and success of the organization.
You may find, for example:
Stakeholders that are adamant to block the change for various reasons
Teams that simply do not have the right skills or attitude to transition to the required state
Processes that are simply outdated or convoluted, so much that end state targets cannot be achieved
Systems that are outdated and do not provide the right insights to support the end state
4. Different Types of Onions and Organizations
Just as there are different types of onions, organizations vary in size, complexity, and nature. Assessing the complexity of the change at the outset helps in determining the time, effort, and resources required to peel back the layers. A comprehensive understanding of the organization’s unique characteristics allows for tailored change management strategies that address specific needs and challenges.
Practical Steps for Applying the Onion Analogy in Change Management
Step 1: Initial Assessment and Planning
Begin by conducting a thorough initial assessment of the organization. This involves gathering data, engaging with key stakeholders, and understanding the current state of affairs. Develop a comprehensive change management plan that outlines the objectives, scope, and timelines for each layer of the onion. This plan should also identify key metrics for measuring success and mechanisms for tracking progress.
Step 2: Assess Leadership and Managerial Capability
Evaluate the capability of leaders and managers to drive change. This includes assessing their skills, experience, and attitudes towards change. Provide training and support where needed to enhance their ability to lead effectively. Strong leadership is foundational to the success of any change initiative.
Step 3: Examine Operational and Business Practices
Analyze current workflows, processes, and systems to identify areas that may require adjustment. Engage with employees at all levels to gather insights and understand potential bottlenecks. Develop strategies to streamline operations and ensure alignment with the change objectives.
Step 4: Review Change Governance Practices
Assess the existing governance structures and practices in place to manage change initiatives. Ensure that there are clear decision-making protocols, accountability mechanisms, and regular progress reviews. Strengthen governance frameworks as needed to support effective change management.
Step 5: Evaluate Engagement Channels
Review the channels and methods used to communicate with stakeholders. Ensure that there are effective mechanisms for disseminating information, collecting feedback, and addressing concerns. Enhance engagement strategies to foster transparency, trust, and collaboration.
Step 6: Identify and Empower Change Champions
Identify individuals within the organization who can serve as change champions. Empower them with the necessary tools, resources, and support to advocate for the change initiatives. Leverage their influence and credibility to promote buy-in and address resistance.
Step 7: Assess System and Process Maturity
Evaluate the maturity of technological systems and processes. Identify areas that require upgrades or improvements to support the change. Invest in the necessary infrastructure and tools to ensure seamless implementation.
Step 8: Assess Change Management Maturity
Conduct a maturity assessment of the organization’s change management capabilities. Identify gaps and areas for improvement. Develop and implement strategies to enhance change management practices, methodologies, and tools.
Step 9: Review Resources and Capacity
Evaluate the availability of resources and capacity to support the change initiatives. Ensure that there are adequate financial, human, and physical resources to execute the change plans. Address any resource constraints proactively to prevent delays and disruptions.
Step 10: Understand Culture and Behavioral Traits
Conduct a cultural assessment to understand the underlying values, beliefs, and behaviors that influence how employees respond to change. Identify cultural strengths that can be leveraged and barriers that need to be addressed. Develop strategies to foster a supportive culture that embraces change.
The analogy of peeling an onion provides a powerful framework for understanding and managing change within an organization. Each layer peeled back reveals new insights and learning opportunities that are essential for successful change management. By carefully examining the various facets of the organization, such as leadership capability, operational practices, and cultural traits, organizations can navigate the complexities of change more effectively.
Patience, persistence, and attention to detail are key to uncovering the true state of the organization and developing tailored strategies that address specific needs and challenges. Ultimately, the journey of peeling the onion in change management leads to a deeper understanding, better preparation, and more successful change outcomes.
Successful change management relies on having the right metrics to measure progress, gauge impact, and communicate with stakeholders. Moreover, the right metrics can drive continuous improvement and help directly achieve change outcomes. However, not all metrics are beneficial, and some can mislead or fail to meet stakeholder needs, especially when managing change projects. Let’s check out the top change management metrics to avoid and go through examples to take note.
Understanding the Disconnect: Change Managers vs. Business Stakeholders
A significant reason certain change management metrics fall short is the differing perspectives between change managers and business stakeholders. Change managers and change practitioners are trained to view metrics through the lens of change management frameworks and methodologies, focusing on detailed assessments and structured approaches as a part of the change management strategy. These include applying ratings and judgments on aspects such as impact levels indicating levels and areas of impact.
In contrast, business stakeholders prioritize business operations, strategic outcomes, and practical implications. The busy business stakeholder is often looking for practical implications from metrics that can be used to directly drive decision making, meaning “what do I do with this data to improve the ultimate business outcome”.
Of course, different stakeholders have different data needs, and you need to show the right metric to the right type of stakeholder. For example, operations-focused stakeholders expect fairly detailed metrics and internal historical data to understand what that means in terms of organisation, coordination, capacity, and performance perspectives. Senior managers may prefer higher-level data with a focus on strategic impacts, overall progress, and adoption indicators of change success rate.
This disconnect can lead to the use of metrics that do not resonate with or are misunderstood by stakeholders that disrupt change success.
Change managers may leverage metrics that are derived from the various change management documents such impact assessments, training plan or communications plan. Metrics are also often chosen for ease of use and ideally are not overly complicated to execute.
For example, impact assessments typically involve rating stakeholder groups and initiatives on a traffic light system (red, amber, green) based on their impact. While this approach is systematic, it can be problematic for several reasons:
Lack of Sufficient Stakeholder Context: Business stakeholders might not understand the practical implications of these ratings. For instance, an “impact rating per initiative” may not clearly convey what the rating means for day-to-day operations or strategic goals. For example, if an initiative has a red impact rating, stakeholders might not grasp the specific operational changes or strategic adjustments needed, in essence, “what do I do with this?”. So, incorrect usage of data could result in lack of stakeholder engagement.
Misinterpretation of Traffic Light Ratings: The red, amber, green system can be misleading. Stakeholders might interpret red as an indicator of alarm or imminent risk, while green may be seen as a sign that no action is needed. This is because stakeholders are trained to interpret traffic light ratings this way (from the various project/business updates they’ve attended). In reality, red might simply mean high impact, requiring focused attention, and green might indicate a low impact but still require monitoring. For instance, a red rating might indicate significant process changes that need careful management, not necessarily a negative outcome.
Hard to defend ratings if prompted: Business stakeholders may also want to drill into how the ratings are determined, and based on what basis. They may expect a logical data-backed reasoning of how each colour scheme is determined. If a rating is based on an overall ‘personal judgment’ this may be hard to defend infront of a group of stakeholders.
Examples of Potentially Misleading Metrics
Certain metrics, although straightforward, can be easily misinterpreted and fail to provide a realistic picture of change impacts as a part of effective change management. Often these are selected because they are easy to report on. However, easy, make not give you the outcome you are looking for.
Number of Go-Lives: Tracking the number of Go-Lives over time might seem like an effective way to represent change volume. However, the most significant impacts on people given time often occur before or after the Go-Live date. For example, the preparation and training phase before Go-Live and the adoption phase afterward are critical periods that this metric overlooks. A Go-Live date might indicate a milestone but not the challenges, progress or impacts faced during the implementation phase.
Number of Activities Implemented: Similar to Go-Lives, this metric focuses on quantity rather than quality. Simply counting the number of activities does not account for their effectiveness or the actual change they drive within the organisation. For example, reporting that 50 training sessions were conducted does not reveal whether employees found them helpful or if they led to improved performance.
Number of impacts or stakeholders impacted: Again, using a numerical way to indicate progress can be very misleading, or unmeaningful. This is because it may be ‘interesting’ but with no real action for your stakeholder to take in order to somehow lead to a better overall change outcome. If metrics do not result in some kind of action, then over time it will not shape your change(s) toward the targeted outcomes. Or worse, your stakeholders may lose interest and lose confidence in the strategic impact of these metrics.
Another common way to report change metrics is to use the number of impacts or number of stakeholders impacted by the organizational change. This can be in terms of the following:
Number of divisions impacted
Number of stakeholder groups impacted
Number of employees impacted
Number of initiatives per division/stakeholder
Metrics That May Be Too Operational
Metrics that are overly operational can fail to capture meaningful progress or adoption. Perhaps if the metric are for reporting within the Change Management team that may be OK. However, when you are showing metrics to stakeholders, a different set of expectations should be cast.
If you are presenting metrics to senior managers, you need to ensure that they hit the mark for that audience group. If the group is more interested in strategic impact, and higher level progress outcomes, you need to tailor accordingly.
Examples of metrics that may be too operational include:
Number of Communications Sent: This metric measures activity but not effectiveness. Sending numerous emails or messages does not guarantee that the message is received, understood, or acted upon by stakeholders. For instance, stakeholders might receive 100 emails, but if the content is unclear, the communication effort is wasted. Or worse, the emails may not even have been read.
Number of Training Sessions Attended: This one is a classic. While training is crucial, the number of sessions attended does not necessarily reflect the attendees’ understanding, engagement, or the practical application of the training. For example, employees might attend training but not apply the new skills if the training is not relevant to their roles for various reasons.
Number of workshops/meetings: Another way of articulating the change management progress in terms of activities is the number of workshops or meetings conducted with stakeholders including focus groups to indicate employee engagement. Again, this may be good to track within the change management team. However, presenting this metric to stakeholders may not be appropriate as it may not meet their needs nor indicate change management success.
Number of changes: This may be a common way to report on changes planned, but it doesn’t really inform the extent of the change. One change can be significantly impactful whilst another does not have major stakeholder impacts and are more system impacts. Listing number of changes may be deceiving or misleading. This kind of data may not get you the level of acceptance targeted.
The way metrics are presented is just as important as the metrics themselves. Poor visualization can lead to misinterpretation, confusion, and misguided decisions. Here are some common pitfalls to avoid:
Ineffective Use of Pie Charts
Pie charts can be misleading when used to show data points that are not significantly different. For example, using a pie chart to represent the percentage of divisions impacted by a change might not effectively communicate the nuances of the impact if the differences between the divisions are minimal. A pie chart showing 45%, 30%, and 25% might not convey the critical differences in impact levels among divisions.
Misleading Traffic Light Ratings
Using red, amber, and green to indicate high, medium, and low impacts can send the wrong message. Stakeholders might associate these colours with good and bad outcomes rather than understanding the actual levels of impact. Stakeholder may be used to interpreting these in the context of their usual project or business updates where red indicated alarm and ‘bad’. This can lead to unnecessary alarm or complacency. For instance, a green rating might suggest no need for action, while in reality, it might require ongoing monitoring.
Overuse of Colours
Using too many colours in charts and graphs can overwhelm stakeholders, making it difficult to discern the key message. Using colours in data visualisation can be two-edged sword. Colour can effectively point your stakeholders are the area where you want them to focus on. But, too many colours can lose your audience. A cluttered visual can obscure the critical data points and lead to misinterpretation. For example, a graph with ten different colours can confuse stakeholders about which data points are most important.
Data visualisation tools are also important. A lot of people use Power BI which works for a foundational level of charts. For tailored charts, specifically designed to to influence stakeholders to clearly see certain angles of risks and opportunities leverage tools such as Change Compass.
Practical Takeaways for Senior Change Managers
To ensure that change management metrics are effective and take into account best practices practices, consider the following practical takeaways:
Align Metrics with Key Stakeholder Perspectives
Understand Stakeholder Priorities: Engage with stakeholders to understand their business goals, priorities and concerns. Tailor your metrics to address these aspects directly. For example, if stakeholders are concerned about operational efficiency, focus on metrics that reflect improvements in this area.
Use Business Language: Frame your metrics in a way that resonates with business stakeholders. Avoid change management jargon and reference, and ensure that the implications of the metrics are clear and actionable. For example, instead of using technical terms, explain how the metrics impact business outcomes. Think in terms of business activities, milestones, busy periods, and capacity challenges.
Focus on Meaningful Metrics
Measure Outcomes, Not Just Activities: Change leaders should prioritize metrics that reflect the outcomes and impacts of change indicate level of knowledge, rather than just the activities performed as a part of change management KPIs. For example, instead of counting the total number of employees attending change management training sessions, measure the improvement in employee performance or knowledge retention post-training.
Example: Instead of reporting that 100 employees attended training sessions, report that 85% of attendees showed improved performance in their roles after training, or that certain level of competencies were gained. Note that quantifiable metrics have more impact on the audience.
Track Engagement and Adoption: Monitor metrics that indicate the level of engagement and adoption among stakeholders or their perception of the change. This could include surveys, feedback forms, or direct measures of behaviour change and the overall success rate of the change.
Example: Use post-training surveys to measure employee confidence in applying new skills or managerial rating of application of learnt skills rather than employee satisfaction of the training sessions using satisfaction scores. Track the percentage of employees who actively use new tools or processes introduced during the change.
Example: Instead of reporting that 100 employees attended training sessions, report that 85% of attendees showed improved performance in their roles after training, or that certain level of competencies were gained.
Example: Use post-training surveys to measure employee confidence in applying new skills or managerial rating of application of learnt skills. Track the percentage of employees who actively use new tools or processes introduced during the change.
Improve Metric Visualization
Simplify Visuals: Use clear, simple visuals that highlight the key messages. Avoid clutter and ensure that the most important data points stand out.
Example: Use bar charts or line graphs to show trends over time rather than pie charts that can be harder to interpret.
Contextualize Data: Provide context for the data to help stakeholders understand the significance. For example, instead of just showing the number of Go-Lives, explain what each Go-Live entails and its expected impact on operations. Or better, focus on showing the varying levels of impact on different stakeholders across time within the initiative.
Example: Accompany a Go-Live count with a visual showing the varying impact level of various implementation activities of the changes.
Example: Use bar charts or line graphs to show trends over time rather than pie charts that can be harder to interpret.
Example: Accompany a Go-Live count with a visual showing the varying impact level of various implementation activities of the changes.
Narrative Approach: Combine metrics with a narrative that explains the story behind the numbers as a part of the change management process. This can help stakeholders understand the broader context and implications.
Example: Instead of presenting raw data, provide a summary that explains key trends, successes, and areas needing attention.
Educate your stakeholders: Depending on stakeholder needs you may need to take them on a phased approach to gradually educate them on change management metrics and how you ultimately want them to drive the outcomes.
Example: You may start the education process to focus on more simplistic and easy-to-understand measures, and as your stakeholders are more change-mature, move to drill into more detailed metrics that explain the ‘why’ and ‘how’ to drive outcome success.
Continuously improvement: Provide regular updates on key metrics and adjust them based on feedback from stakeholders. Continuous communication ensures that everyone remains aligned and informed.
Example: Hold monthly review meetings with stakeholders to discuss the latest metrics, address concerns, and adjust strategies as needed.
Example: Instead of presenting raw data, provide a summary that explains key trends, successes, and areas needing attention.
Example: You may start the education process to focus on more simplistic and easy-to-understand measures, and as your stakeholders are more change-mature, move to drill into more detailed metrics that explain the ‘why’ and ‘how’ to drive outcome success.
Example: Hold monthly review meetings with stakeholders to discuss the latest metrics, address concerns, and adjust strategies as needed.
Examples of Effective Metrics
Employee Adoption and Engagement
Percentage of Employees Adopting New Process/System: This metric measures the rate at which employees are using new processes or systems introduced during the change. High adoption rates indicate successful integration.
Implementation: Use software usage analytics or surveys to track tool adoption rates.
Visualization: A graph showing adoption rates over time.
Employee Feedback Scores: Collect feedback on change initiatives through surveys or stakeholder ratings to measure sentiment/feedback and identify areas for improvement.
Implementation: Conduct regular surveys asking employees about their experience with the change process. Do note that depending on the change you may expect negative feedback due to the nature of the change itself (vs the way it was implemented).
Visualization: Bar/Line charts comparing feedback scores across different departments or time periods. Bar/Line charts are the standard go-to for data visualisation. They are easy to understand and interpret.
Implementation: Use software usage analytics or surveys to track tool adoption rates.
Visualization: A graph showing adoption rates over time.
Implementation: Conduct regular surveys asking employees about their experience with the change implementation process. Do note that depending on the change you may expect negative feedback due to the nature of the change itself (vs the way it was implemented).
Visualization: Bar/Line charts comparing feedback scores across different departments or time periods. Bar/Line charts are the standard go-to for data visualisation. They are easy to understand and interpret.
Impact on Business Outcomes
Improvement in Key Performance Indicators (KPIs): Track changes in KPIs that are directly impacted by the change initiatives, such as productivity, customer satisfaction, customer experience, improvement in process inconsistencies or financial performance.
Implementation: Identify relevant KPIs and measure their performance before and after change initiatives.
Visualization: Use line/bar graphs to show trends in KPI performance over time.
Operational Efficiency Metrics: Measure improvements in operational processes, such as reduced cycle times, error rates, or cost savings.
Implementation: Track specific operational metrics relevant to the change initiatives.
Visualization: Bar charts or heatmaps showing improvements in efficiency metrics across different operational areas.
Implementation: Identify relevant KPIs and measure their performance before and after change initiatives.
Visualization: Use line/bar graphs to show trends in KPI performance over time.
Implementation: Track specific operational metrics relevant to the change initiatives.
Visualization: Bar charts or heatmaps showing improvements in efficiency metrics across different operational areas.
Change management effectiveness requires metrics that not only measure progress but also resonate with business stakeholders and accurately reflect the impact of change initiatives. They should provide valuable insights. Avoiding common pitfalls such as relying on easily misinterpreted or overly operational metrics is crucial. By aligning metrics with stakeholder perspectives, focusing on meaningful outcomes, improving visualization, and communicating effectively, senior change and transformation professionals can ensure that their metrics truly support the success of their change initiatives.
The top change management metrics to avoid are those that fail to provide clear, actionable insights to business stakeholders. By understanding and addressing the disconnect between change managers and business stakeholders, and by prioritizing metrics that truly reflect the impact and progress of change, you can drive more effective and successful change management efforts by influencing your stakeholders in your organisation.
As a next step, Chat with us if you would like to discuss more about leveraging AI and technology to generate high-impact change management metrics and data for your stakeholders, both at project and portfolio levels, using data visualisation tools.
Change management is an intricate dance between vision, strategy, execution, and perhaps most importantly, adoption. The ultimate goal of any change initiative is not merely to implement new systems, processes, or regulations, but rather to embed these changes into the very fabric of the organization, ensuring widespread adoption and long-term sustainability.
What are the key adoption metrics that companies should track?
Key adoption metrics include user engagement rates, feature usage, retention rates, and the number of customers providing customer feedback. Tracking these metrics helps companies assess the effectiveness of their change management strategies, ensuring successful implementation and identifying areas for improvement. Consistent evaluation leads to enhanced user experiences and better overall outcomes during the adoption process.
What are the key adoption metrics that companies should track?
Key adoption metrics companies should track, including essential product adoption metrics, such as product stickiness, user engagement, customer retention rates, and conversion rates. Additionally, monitoring customer feedback and satisfaction scores can provide insights into how well the change is being received and inform the product roadmap, which is crucial for fostering customer loyalty. These metrics help organizations measure the success of their change initiatives and identify areas for improvement.
However, achieving full adoption is no small feat. Many change initiatives falter along the way, failing to garner the buy-in and commitment necessary for success. Even when adoption is initially achieved, sustaining it over time presents its own set of challenges.
What are the key adoption metrics that companies should track?
Key adoption metrics companies should track include user engagement, feature usage and adoption, onboarding process drop offs, retention rates, daily active users, feature activation rate, product adoption rate, and feedback scores. These indicators help assess user behavior and how well employees embrace new tools or processes, including the adoption of new features, guiding improvements in the parts of your product experience and ensuring successful implementation of the product’s core features. Monitoring these metrics fosters a culture of continuous improvement, offers insights into user behavior, and better aligns with organizational goals.
Change adoption is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor. It’s influenced by a myriad of factors, including organizational culture, leadership support, employee engagement, and the nature of the change itself. Therefore, it’s essential to approach the measurement of adoption metrics with a nuanced understanding of these dynamics.
Before diving into specific metrics, let’s explore some fundamental principles of change adoption:
Context Matters: Every change initiative is unique, shaped by its context, stakeholders, and objectives. What works for one organization may not necessarily work for another. Therefore, it’s crucial to tailor adoption metrics to align with the specific goals and dynamics of each initiative.
Focus on Outcomes: Adoption metrics should go beyond mere activities or outputs and focus on outcomes. Instead of measuring how many employees attended training sessions, for example, focus on whether the training resulted in improved performance or behaviour change, and that the feature adoption rate is adequate. For example, the average time of performing a process or task, average session duration, and monthly active users for a product feature.
Continuous Monitoring: Change adoption is not a one-time event but an ongoing process. Continuous monitoring of adoption metrics allows organizations to identify trends, address challenges, and make course corrections as needed.
Now, let’s explore user adoption and adoption metrics across different types of change initiatives, including those related to user personas:
Metrics for System Implementations:
System implementations, whether it’s a new CRM platform, ERP system, or productivity tool, often represent significant investments for organizations. To ensure a return on investment, it’s crucial to measure adoption effectively. Here are some key metrics to consider:
System Feature Usage Frequency: Measure how frequently employees utilize various features of the new system. This metric provides insights into whether employees are leveraging the system to its full potential and identifies areas for additional training or support.
Process Efficiency: Assess the efficiency gains achieved through the implementation of the new system. This metric quantifies improvements in workflow efficiency, resource utilization, and cycle times.
Customer Conversation Audit: If the change is aimed to improve the quality of customer interactions post-implementation, then the customer conversation should be audited. This metric focuses on whether the system enhances customer information accessibility, improves service representation, and ultimately leads to higher customer satisfaction.
Sales Volume: If the system aims to boost sales, track changes in sales volume post-implementation. This metric provides a tangible indicator of the system’s impact on revenue generation and business performance.
Information Completeness: Measure the completeness of customer information captured by the new system. This metric highlights the system’s effectiveness in capturing and storing relevant data, which is critical for decision-making and customer service.
Customer Satisfaction: Gauge customer satisfaction levels following the system implementation. This metric reflects the system’s ability to meet customer needs, deliver value, and enhance overall experience and satisfaction.
Metrics for Compliance Initiatives:
Compliance initiatives, whether it’s adherence to regulatory standards, industry certifications, or internal policies, require meticulous attention to detail. Here are some key metrics to consider for measuring compliance adoption:
Process Compliance: Monitor adherence to regulatory processes and requirements. This metric ensures that the organization remains compliant with relevant regulations and mitigates the risk of non-compliance penalties.
Rated Compliance of Targeted Behaviours: Evaluate the compliance level of specific behaviours targeted by the regulatory change. This metric provides insights into whether employees are adopting the prescribed behaviours and following compliance protocols.
Frequency of Team Leader Coaching: Track the frequency of coaching sessions conducted by team leaders to reinforce compliance behaviours. This metric emphasizes the role of leadership in driving and sustaining compliance across the organization.
Customer Feedback: Solicit feedback from customers regarding their experience with the organization post-compliance implementation. This metric captures customer perceptions of the organization’s adherence to regulatory standards and its commitment to compliance.
Number of Incidents: Depending on the nature of compliance requirements, track the number of incidents related to non-compliance. This metric serves as an early warning system for identifying areas of weakness in compliance efforts and implementing corrective actions.
Metrics for Restructuring Initiatives:
Restructuring initiatives, whether driven by mergers, acquisitions, organizational realignment, or cost-cutting measures, often have far-reaching implications for employees, departments, and the overall organizational structure. Measuring adoption in restructuring initiatives requires a nuanced understanding of the changes’ impact on employee morale, productivity, and alignment with organizational goals. Here are some key metrics to consider:
Employee Engagement and Morale: Measure changes in employee engagement and morale before, during, and after the restructuring initiative. Surveys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews can provide valuable insights into employees’ perceptions, concerns, and levels of commitment to the new organizational structure.
Organizational Alignment: Assess the degree to which the restructuring initiative aligns with the organization’s strategic objectives and long-term vision. Key performance indicators (KPIs), such as revenue growth, market share, and customer satisfaction, can help gauge the effectiveness of the restructuring in driving organizational alignment and performance.
Communication Effectiveness: Evaluate the effectiveness of communication channels and messaging during the restructuring process. Metrics such as employee feedback on communication clarity, frequency of updates, and perceived transparency can shed light on the effectiveness of communication strategies in managing change and alleviating uncertainty.
Employee Productivity and Performance: Monitor changes in employee productivity and performance following the restructuring initiative. Key metrics may include employee turnover rates, absenteeism, and performance evaluations. By tracking these metrics over time, organizations can assess the impact of restructuring on employee motivation, workload, and job satisfaction.
Leadership Effectiveness: Assess the effectiveness of leadership in navigating the restructuring process and driving adoption of the new organizational structure. Metrics such as employee ratings of leadership communication, support, and decision-making can provide valuable feedback on leadership effectiveness and its impact on employee morale and commitment.
Team Dynamics and Collaboration: Measure changes in team dynamics, collaboration, and cross-functional cooperation post-restructuring. Surveys, team assessments, and project outcomes can help identify strengths and weaknesses in team dynamics and collaboration, enabling organizations to address barriers to adoption and foster a culture of teamwork and collaboration.
Implementing and Measuring Adoption Metrics:
Once you’ve identified the relevant adoption metrics for your change initiative, the next step is to implement and measure them effectively. Here are some practical strategies to consider:
Surveys: Utilize surveys to gather feedback from employees, customers, and other stakeholders. Design surveys to capture both quantitative data, such as ratings and frequencies, and qualitative insights into the perceived effectiveness of the change initiative.
Observations: Encourage stakeholders, subject matter experts (SMEs), change champions, and leaders to observe and provide feedback on the implementation process. Their firsthand observations can uncover valuable insights into adoption barriers and successes.
System Tracking Data: Leverage data captured by the system itself to track usage patterns, process compliance, and other relevant metrics. Analyze this data to identify trends and areas for improvement in adoption efforts.
Employee or Stakeholder Feedback Sessions: Conduct regular meetings, interviews, or workshops to solicit feedback from employees and stakeholders. Create a safe and open environment for sharing concerns, challenges, and suggestions related to the change initiative.
Continuous Improvement: Use adoption metrics as a basis for continuous improvement. Regularly review and analyze adoption data to identify areas of success and opportunities for enhancement. Make adjustments to strategies, communication plans, and support mechanisms as needed to drive greater adoption.
Measuring Behaviours in System Implementations:
A significant portion of change involved system or digital change. In system implementations, the successful adoption of new technologies and processes often hinges on changes in employee behaviours. While it’s essential to track macro-level outcomes such as system usage frequency and process efficiency, measuring micro-behaviours provides a stronger link to the direct, underlying drivers of adoption. Here’s how to measure targeted and specific micro-behaviours in the context of a system implementation:
User Interface Navigation: Assess employees’ proficiency in navigating the new system’s user interface. Track metrics such as the time taken to complete common tasks, the number of clicks required to access key features, and the frequency of help requests. If these are not available, observational studies and user feedback can also provide valuable insights into usability issues and training needs.
Data Entry Accuracy: Measure the accuracy of data entry performed by employees using the new system. Compare the quality of data input before and after the implementation, looking for improvements in data accuracy, completeness, and consistency. Conduct periodic audits and spot checks to identify errors and areas for improvement.
Workflow Integration: Evaluate the extent to which employees integrate the new system into their existing workflows. Track metrics such as the proportion of tasks completed using the new system versus legacy systems, the frequency of workarounds or manual interventions, and the level of integration with other tools or processes. Interviews and focus groups can uncover barriers to workflow integration and inform targeted interventions.
Collaboration and Knowledge Sharing: Measure employees’ engagement in collaborative activities and knowledge sharing facilitated by the new system. Look for indicators such as the frequency of document sharing, participation in online discussions or forums, and contributions to shared repositories or knowledge bases. Social network analysis and peer assessments can highlight patterns of collaboration and identify key influencers or knowledge brokers within the organization.
Adoption of Best Practices: Assess employees’ adoption of best practices and standardized workflows supported by the new system. Monitor adherence to established guidelines, protocols, and procedures, looking for deviations or non-compliance. Use performance metrics such as error rates, rework cycles, and customer satisfaction scores to evaluate the effectiveness of best practices in driving desired outcomes.
Change Agent Engagement: Measure the engagement and effectiveness of change agents, champions, or ambassadors tasked with promoting adoption of the new system. Track metrics such as the frequency of communication and training sessions led by change agents, the level of participation in peer support networks or mentoring programs, and the impact of their advocacy efforts on adoption rates. Surveys and feedback mechanisms can assess the perceived credibility, accessibility, and responsiveness of change agents.
Implementing and Measuring Micro-Behaviours:
Define Clear and Measurable Objectives: Identify specific behaviours that are critical to the success of the system implementation and define clear, measurable objectives for each behaviour. Ensure alignment with broader adoption goals and desired outcomes.
Select Relevant Metrics: Choose metrics that are closely aligned with the targeted micro-behaviours and are actionable, observable, and trackable over time. Consider a combination of quantitative data (e.g., completion rates, error rates) and qualitative insights (e.g., user feedback, observational data) to provide a comprehensive understanding of behaviour change.
Utilize Multiple Data Sources: Gather data from multiple sources, including system logs, user activity tracking, surveys, interviews, and observational studies. Triangulating data from different sources enhances the reliability and validity of measurement and provides a more holistic view of behaviour change.
Monitor Progress Continuously: Establish a system for continuous monitoring of micro-behaviours throughout the implementation process. Regularly review and analyze data to identify trends, patterns, and areas for improvement. Use real-time feedback mechanisms to address issues and reinforce positive behaviours promptly.
Provide Timely Feedback and Support: Provide employees with timely feedback on their performance and progress toward behaviour change goals. Offer targeted support, training, and resources to address skill gaps, overcome barriers, and reinforce desired behaviours. Celebrate successes and recognize individuals or teams that demonstrate exemplary behaviour change.
Iterate and Adapt: Continuously iterate and adapt your measurement approach based on ongoing feedback and insights. Adjust metrics, data collection methods, and interventions as needed to respond to changing circumstances, emerging challenges, and evolving user needs. Be flexible and open to experimentation to optimize the effectiveness of your behaviour change efforts.
How Many Metrics Should I Use?
When it comes to measuring behaviour change in change initiatives, the age-old adage “less is more” holds true. While it may be tempting to track a multitude of metrics in the hopes of capturing every aspect of adoption, focusing on the critical few behaviours that will have the most direct impact on the outcome of the change is essential. You are also not going to have the bandwidth and resources to measure ‘everything’. Here’s how to determine the right number of metrics to use:
Focus on Key Objectives: Start by identifying the key objectives of the change initiative. What are the primary outcomes you hope to achieve? Whether it’s increased system usage, improved process efficiency, enhanced customer satisfaction, or compliance with regulatory standards, prioritize the behaviours that directly contribute to these objectives.
Prioritize High-Impact Behaviours: Narrow down your list of behaviours to those that have the most significant impact on achieving your key objectives. What are the critical few behaviours that, if changed, would lead to the greatest improvement in outcomes? Focus on behaviours that are both important and feasible to change within the scope of the initiative.
Consider Complexity and Manageability: Be mindful of the complexity and manageability of the behaviours you choose to measure. While it’s important to capture a comprehensive view of behaviour change, tracking too many metrics can become overwhelming and dilute focus. Aim for a manageable number of metrics that are meaningful, actionable, and directly linked to the desired outcomes.
Quantitative vs Qualitative Metrics: Whilst quantitative metrics are usually preferred by executives and easier to report on, sometimes you may need to incorporate qualitative metrics to gain a holistic understanding of behaviour change. Quantitative metrics such as completion rates, error rates, and productivity measures provide objective data on behaviour performance, while qualitative insights from surveys, interviews, and observations offer deeper context and understanding.
Consider Interdependencies and Trade-Offs: Recognize that behaviours are often interconnected, and changes in one behaviour may impact others. Consider the interdependencies and potential trade-offs between different behaviours when selecting your metrics. Focus on behaviours that have a ripple effect and can drive change across multiple dimensions of the initiative.
By focusing on the critical few behaviours that have the most direct impact on the outcome of the change, you can streamline measurement efforts, maintain clarity of purpose, and maximize the effectiveness of your change initiative. Remember, the goal is not to measure everything, but to measure what matters most and use that information to drive meaningful behaviour change and achieve successful adoption of the change.
Change adoption dashboard
Now that you have determined exactly what you want to measure to drive adoption, you may want to create a dashboard. Check out our article on ‘Designing a Change Adoption Dashboard’.
Change adoption is the ultimate goal of any change initiative, and effective measurement of adoption metrics is key to integrating change into daily lives and achieving a product’s success. By understanding the dynamics of change adoption and the user journey, selecting the right metrics, and implementing them effectively, change practitioners and product managers can navigate the complexities of change and drive meaningful outcomes for their organizations. Remember, adoption is not a destination but a journey, and with the right metrics and strategies in place, sustainable change is within reach.
To find out more about leveraging a digital platform to create a change adoption dashboard click the below to chat to us.
Change management is an intricate dance between vision, strategy, execution, and perhaps most importantly, adoption. The ultimate goal of any change initiative is not merely to implement new systems, processes, or regulations, but rather to embed these changes into the very fabric of the organization, ensuring widespread adoption and long-term sustainability.
However, achieving full adoption is no small feat. Many change initiatives falter along the way, failing to garner the buy-in and commitment necessary for success. Even when adoption is initially achieved, sustaining it over time presents its own set of challenges.
Understanding the Dynamics of Change Adoption:
Change adoption is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor. It’s influenced by a myriad of factors, including organizational culture, leadership support, employee engagement, and the nature of the change itself. Therefore, it’s essential to approach the measurement of adoption metrics with a nuanced understanding of these dynamics.
Before diving into specific metrics, let’s explore some fundamental principles of change adoption:
Context Matters: Every change initiative is unique, shaped by its context, stakeholders, and objectives. What works for one organization may not necessarily work for another. Therefore, it’s crucial to tailor adoption metrics to align with the specific goals and dynamics of each initiative.
Focus on Outcomes: Adoption metrics should go beyond mere activities or outputs and focus on outcomes. Instead of measuring how many employees attended training sessions, for example, focus on whether the training resulted in improved performance or behaviour change.
Continuous Monitoring: Change adoption is not a one-time event but an ongoing process. Continuous monitoring of adoption metrics allows organizations to identify trends, address challenges, and make course corrections as needed.
Now, let’s explore adoption metrics across different types of change initiatives:
Metrics for System Implementations:
System implementations, whether it’s a new CRM platform, ERP system, or productivity tool, often represent significant investments for organizations. To ensure a return on investment, it’s crucial to measure adoption effectively. Here are some key metrics to consider:
System Feature Usage Frequency: Measure how frequently employees utilize various features of the new system. This metric provides insights into whether employees are leveraging the system to its full potential and identifies areas for additional training or support.
Process Efficiency: Assess the efficiency gains achieved through the implementation of the new system. This metric quantifies improvements in workflow efficiency, resource utilization, and cycle times.
Customer Conversation Audit: If the change is aimed to improve the quality of customer interactions post-implementation, then the customer conversation should be audited. This metric focuses on whether the system enhances customer information accessibility, improves service representation, and ultimately leads to higher customer satisfaction.
Sales Volume: If the system aims to boost sales, track changes in sales volume post-implementation. This metric provides a tangible indicator of the system’s impact on revenue generation and business performance.
Information Completeness: Measure the completeness of customer information captured by the new system. This metric highlights the system’s effectiveness in capturing and storing relevant data, which is critical for decision-making and customer service.
Customer Satisfaction: Gauge customer satisfaction levels following the system implementation. This metric reflects the system’s ability to meet customer needs, deliver value, and enhance overall satisfaction.
Metrics for Compliance Initiatives:
Compliance initiatives, whether it’s adherence to regulatory standards, industry certifications, or internal policies, require meticulous attention to detail. Here are some key metrics to consider for measuring compliance adoption:
Process Compliance: Monitor adherence to regulatory processes and requirements. This metric ensures that the organization remains compliant with relevant regulations and mitigates the risk of non-compliance penalties.
Rated Compliance of Targeted Behaviours: Evaluate the compliance level of specific behaviours targeted by the regulatory change. This metric provides insights into whether employees are adopting the prescribed behaviours and following compliance protocols.
Frequency of Team Leader Coaching: Track the frequency of coaching sessions conducted by team leaders to reinforce compliance behaviours. This metric emphasizes the role of leadership in driving and sustaining compliance across the organization.
Customer Feedback: Solicit feedback from customers regarding their experience with the organization post-compliance implementation. This metric captures customer perceptions of the organization’s adherence to regulatory standards and its commitment to compliance.
Number of Incidents: Depending on the nature of compliance requirements, track the number of incidents related to non-compliance. This metric serves as an early warning system for identifying areas of weakness in compliance efforts and implementing corrective actions.
Metrics for Restructuring Initiatives:
Restructuring initiatives, whether driven by mergers, acquisitions, organizational realignment, or cost-cutting measures, often have far-reaching implications for employees, departments, and the overall organizational structure. Measuring adoption in restructuring initiatives requires a nuanced understanding of the changes’ impact on employee morale, productivity, and alignment with organizational goals. Here are some key metrics to consider:
Employee Engagement and Morale: Measure changes in employee engagement and morale before, during, and after the restructuring initiative. Surveys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews can provide valuable insights into employees’ perceptions, concerns, and levels of commitment to the new organizational structure.
Organizational Alignment: Assess the degree to which the restructuring initiative aligns with the organization’s strategic objectives and long-term vision. Key performance indicators (KPIs), such as revenue growth, market share, and customer satisfaction, can help gauge the effectiveness of the restructuring in driving organizational alignment and performance.
Communication Effectiveness: Evaluate the effectiveness of communication channels and messaging during the restructuring process. Metrics such as employee feedback on communication clarity, frequency of updates, and perceived transparency can shed light on the effectiveness of communication strategies in managing change and alleviating uncertainty.
Employee Productivity and Performance: Monitor changes in employee productivity and performance following the restructuring initiative. Key metrics may include employee turnover rates, absenteeism, and performance evaluations. By tracking these metrics over time, organizations can assess the impact of restructuring on employee motivation, workload, and job satisfaction.
Leadership Effectiveness: Assess the effectiveness of leadership in navigating the restructuring process and driving adoption of the new organizational structure. Metrics such as employee ratings of leadership communication, support, and decision-making can provide valuable feedback on leadership effectiveness and its impact on employee morale and commitment.
Team Dynamics and Collaboration: Measure changes in team dynamics, collaboration, and cross-functional cooperation post-restructuring. Surveys, team assessments, and project outcomes can help identify strengths and weaknesses in team dynamics and collaboration, enabling organizations to address barriers to adoption and foster a culture of teamwork and collaboration.
Implementing and Measuring Adoption Metrics:
Once you’ve identified the relevant adoption metrics for your change initiative, the next step is to implement and measure them effectively. Here are some practical strategies to consider:
Surveys: Utilize surveys to gather feedback from employees, customers, and other stakeholders. Design surveys to capture both quantitative data, such as ratings and frequencies, and qualitative insights into the perceived effectiveness of the change initiative.
Observations: Encourage stakeholders, subject matter experts (SMEs), change champions, and leaders to observe and provide feedback on the implementation process. Their firsthand observations can uncover valuable insights into adoption barriers and successes.
System Tracking Data: Leverage data captured by the system itself to track usage patterns, process compliance, and other relevant metrics. Analyze this data to identify trends and areas for improvement in adoption efforts.
Employee or Stakeholder Feedback Sessions: Conduct regular meetings, interviews, or workshops to solicit feedback from employees and stakeholders. Create a safe and open environment for sharing concerns, challenges, and suggestions related to the change initiative.
Continuous Improvement: Use adoption metrics as a basis for continuous improvement. Regularly review and analyze adoption data to identify areas of success and opportunities for enhancement. Make adjustments to strategies, communication plans, and support mechanisms as needed to drive greater adoption.
Measuring Behaviours in System Implementations:
A significant portion of change involved system or digital change. In system implementations, the successful adoption of new technologies and processes often hinges on changes in employee behaviours. While it’s essential to track macro-level outcomes such as system usage frequency and process efficiency, measuring micro-behaviours provides a stronger link to the direct, underlying drivers of adoption. Here’s how to measure targeted and specific micro-behaviours in the context of a system implementation:
User Interface Navigation: Assess employees’ proficiency in navigating the new system’s user interface. Track metrics such as the time taken to complete common tasks, the number of clicks required to access key features, and the frequency of help requests. If these are not available, observational studies and user feedback can also provide valuable insights into usability issues and training needs.
Data Entry Accuracy: Measure the accuracy of data entry performed by employees using the new system. Compare the quality of data input before and after the implementation, looking for improvements in data accuracy, completeness, and consistency. Conduct periodic audits and spot checks to identify errors and areas for improvement.
Workflow Integration: Evaluate the extent to which employees integrate the new system into their existing workflows. Track metrics such as the proportion of tasks completed using the new system versus legacy systems, the frequency of workarounds or manual interventions, and the level of integration with other tools or processes. Interviews and focus groups can uncover barriers to workflow integration and inform targeted interventions.
Collaboration and Knowledge Sharing: Measure employees’ engagement in collaborative activities and knowledge sharing facilitated by the new system. Look for indicators such as the frequency of document sharing, participation in online discussions or forums, and contributions to shared repositories or knowledge bases. Social network analysis and peer assessments can highlight patterns of collaboration and identify key influencers or knowledge brokers within the organization.
Adoption of Best Practices: Assess employees’ adoption of best practices and standardized workflows supported by the new system. Monitor adherence to established guidelines, protocols, and procedures, looking for deviations or non-compliance. Use performance metrics such as error rates, rework cycles, and customer satisfaction scores to evaluate the effectiveness of best practices in driving desired outcomes.
Change Agent Engagement: Measure the engagement and effectiveness of change agents, champions, or ambassadors tasked with promoting adoption of the new system. Track metrics such as the frequency of communication and training sessions led by change agents, the level of participation in peer support networks or mentoring programs, and the impact of their advocacy efforts on adoption rates. Surveys and feedback mechanisms can assess the perceived credibility, accessibility, and responsiveness of change agents.
Implementing and Measuring Micro-Behaviours:
Define Clear and Measurable Objectives: Identify specific behaviours that are critical to the success of the system implementation and define clear, measurable objectives for each behaviour. Ensure alignment with broader adoption goals and desired outcomes.
Select Relevant Metrics: Choose metrics that are closely aligned with the targeted micro-behaviours and are actionable, observable, and trackable over time. Consider a combination of quantitative data (e.g., completion rates, error rates) and qualitative insights (e.g., user feedback, observational data) to provide a comprehensive understanding of behaviour change.
Utilize Multiple Data Sources: Gather data from multiple sources, including system logs, user activity tracking, surveys, interviews, and observational studies. Triangulating data from different sources enhances the reliability and validity of measurement and provides a more holistic view of behaviour change.
Monitor Progress Continuously: Establish a system for continuous monitoring of micro-behaviours throughout the implementation process. Regularly review and analyze data to identify trends, patterns, and areas for improvement. Use real-time feedback mechanisms to address issues and reinforce positive behaviours promptly.
Provide Timely Feedback and Support: Provide employees with timely feedback on their performance and progress toward behaviour change goals. Offer targeted support, training, and resources to address skill gaps, overcome barriers, and reinforce desired behaviours. Celebrate successes and recognize individuals or teams that demonstrate exemplary behaviour change.
Iterate and Adapt: Continuously iterate and adapt your measurement approach based on ongoing feedback and insights. Adjust metrics, data collection methods, and interventions as needed to respond to changing circumstances, emerging challenges, and evolving user needs. Be flexible and open to experimentation to optimize the effectiveness of your behaviour change efforts.
How Many Metrics Should I Use?
When it comes to measuring behaviour change in change initiatives, the age-old adage “less is more” holds true. While it may be tempting to track a multitude of metrics in the hopes of capturing every aspect of adoption, focusing on the critical few behaviours that will have the most direct impact on the outcome of the change is essential. You are also not going to have the bandwidth and resources to measure ‘everything’. Here’s how to determine the right number of metrics to use:
Focus on Key Objectives: Start by identifying the key objectives of the change initiative. What are the primary outcomes you hope to achieve? Whether it’s increased system usage, improved process efficiency, enhanced customer satisfaction, or compliance with regulatory standards, prioritize the behaviours that directly contribute to these objectives.
Prioritize High-Impact Behaviours: Narrow down your list of behaviours to those that have the most significant impact on achieving your key objectives. What are the critical few behaviours that, if changed, would lead to the greatest improvement in outcomes? Focus on behaviours that are both important and feasible to change within the scope of the initiative.
Consider Complexity and Manageability: Be mindful of the complexity and manageability of the behaviours you choose to measure. While it’s important to capture a comprehensive view of behaviour change, tracking too many metrics can become overwhelming and dilute focus. Aim for a manageable number of metrics that are meaningful, actionable, and directly linked to the desired outcomes.
Quantitative vs Qualitative Metrics: Whilst quantitative metrics are usually preferred by executives and easier to report on, sometimes you may need to incorporate qualitative metrics to gain a holistic understanding of behaviour change. Quantitative metrics such as completion rates, error rates, and productivity measures provide objective data on behaviour performance, while qualitative insights from surveys, interviews, and observations offer deeper context and understanding.
Consider Interdependencies and Trade-Offs: Recognize that behaviours are often interconnected, and changes in one behaviour may impact others. Consider the interdependencies and potential trade-offs between different behaviours when selecting your metrics. Focus on behaviours that have a ripple effect and can drive change across multiple dimensions of the initiative.
By focusing on the critical few behaviours that have the most direct impact on the outcome of the change, you can streamline measurement efforts, maintain clarity of purpose, and maximize the effectiveness of your change initiative. Remember, the goal is not to measure everything, but to measure what matters most and use that information to drive meaningful behaviour change and achieve successful adoption of the change.
Change adoption dashboard
Now that you have determined exactly what you want to measure to drive adoption, you may want to create a dashboard. Check out our article on ‘Designing a Change Adoption Dashboard’.
Change adoption is the ultimate goal of any change initiative, and effective measurement of adoption metrics is key to achieving success. By understanding the dynamics of change adoption, selecting the right metrics, and implementing them effectively, change practitioners and leaders can navigate the complexities of change and drive meaningful outcomes for their organizations. Remember, adoption is not a destination but a journey, and with the right metrics and strategies in place, sustainable change is within reach.
To find out more about leveraging a digital platform to create a change adoption dashboard click the below to chat to us.
Exploring Organisational Structures for Optimal Enterprise Change Management
Change is an inherent part of every organization’s journey towards growth and adaptability in an ever-evolving business landscape. In the realm of change management, one critical consideration is the organizational structure or design that best facilitates successful enterprise change management. There are plenty of different ways to structure change management practices. Like any type of organizational structures for organizations overall, there is not one way that is the most effective. It depends on the circumstances of the company in concern.
Centralized Change Management Structure
Centralized change management structures consolidate the authority, decision-making, and oversight of strategic change management initiatives within a single, dedicated team or department. In such a structure, the change management team sometimes reports directly to either Strategy or Office of the CEO. This approach provides the change practice significant influence due to its direct linkage with strategy.
Reporting Lines: HR, IT, Strategy, and More
In addition to the choice between centralized and federated structures, change management specialists (and the senior leaders that they report to) often grapple with determining the optimal reporting lines for their change teams. Several departments within an organization are typically considered for hosting the change management function:
1. Human Resources (HR or People & Culture)
Reporting to HR aligns cultural change management with employee engagement and organisational development, which is essential for enhancing a company’s culture. This can be particularly effective when change initiatives heavily impact the workforce, as HR possesses expertise in people-related matters.
2. Information Technology (IT)
With the increasing digitalization of business processes, reporting to IT can ensure that complex technology-driven changes, including the introduction of new technology and digital transformation, as well as improvements in product offerings, are well led and managed across the enterprise. The remit for change practices reporting to IT can range from including just technology changes, to all strategic and funded initiatives, through to all of change management as a function.
3. Strategy or Transformation Office
Reporting to the strategy or transformation office closely ties change management to the organization’s overarching strategic goals. This alignment ensures that change initiatives are directly linked to long-term vision and objectives.
4. Operations
For a lot of organisations, the Operations function can determine a lot about how the organisation is run. This can include the change management function as well. The advantage of having the change practice reporting to Operation can mean that the operating rhythm of the organisation can be designed with the right change management approaches to support business goals. The way employees are engaged, how they’re involved, and how BAU processes are run, measured, and reported can be designed with change management interventions.
Key benefits of a centralized structure include:
Consistency: Centralized control ensures consistent change management practices across the organization, reducing confusion and increasing effectiveness in terms of setting a common level of practice. Consistency in terms of language and concepts mean that it is easier for the business to adopt change management principles and practices.
Resource Allocation: Easier resource allocation, as the centralized team can prioritize and allocate resources based on organizational priorities. With better economy of scale for a larger centralised team, the change group has the opportunity to resource initiatives using different levels of involvement, from sessional, part-time to full-time.
Alignment: Enhanced alignment with the organization’s strategic objectives, as the change management team directly interfaces with top leadership. This means that effort and focus areas as more likely to be on that which is most strategic and can impact the organisation the most.
Change maturity. The change practice has the opportunity to focus on building organisation-wide change maturity due to its ability to interface and influence across the organisation. While other change management structures may also have the ability to focus on building business change maturity, a centralised function has the advantage of having a greater impact level due to its scale.
In contrast, federated change management structures distribute change management responsibilities throughout various business units or departments. Each business unit maintains its own change management team, and these teams collaborate to execute change initiatives. Typically, these teams report to their respective department heads. This means that there is no formal enterprise change management function.
The advantages of a federated structure include:
Local Expertise: Greater understanding of department-specific needs and challenges, leading to tailored change strategies and therefore better change outcomes. Different business units can have very different cultures and different business needs. Having change professionals who understand the various intricacies of the business unit means that they’re able to design change approaches that will better meet business requirements.
Ownership and relationship: There may be increased ownership and commitment among departmental staff, as the change teams sits in the same business unit and are ‘one of them’ versus someone sent from a centralised team. Others in the business unit may be more conducive to advice and support from a colleague in the same broader business unit. It is also easier to establish a closer working relationship if the change practitioner is always working with the same teams.
Flexibility: Greater adaptability to changes in individual departments, as they can independently address unique issues. Without any direction from a central team, the business-dedicated team can better flex their service offering to meet the business unit’s particular focus areas. Whilst, a central team may de-prioritise departmental-level initiatives to be less critical, for a departmental team it is much easier to flex toward their priorities.
Impact on Business Results
The choice of change management structure and reporting lines can significantly impact an organization’s overall business results. Here’s how different structures can yield varying outcomes:
Centralized Structure Outcomes
Efficiency: Centralized structures can excel in efficiency of delivery due to its scale of economy. Whereas small departmental change teams may structure to flex and resource projects efficiently, larger change practices can avoid this by leveraging its range of practitioners with different levels of skill sets and availability.
Consistency: They ensure a consistent approach to change management, reducing confusion among business stakeholders and employees. The consistency of standards also mean that there is less risk that initiatives may experienced a change intervention that is less effective due to the centralised capability standards reinforced.
Top-Down Control: Change initiatives are closely aligned with strategic objectives set by top leadership. This means that any ‘pet projects’ or less prioritised divisional initiatives may not be as likely to be granted change management support. This does not necessarily mean that those departments won’t focus on those initiatives, it just means that change management resources are more prioritised toward what top leadership deems to be most critical.
Federated Structure Outcomes
Local Engagement: Federated structures promote local ownership and engagement, fostering a sense of responsibility among departmental staff. Department-specific change practitioners will be more familiar with ‘what works’ at the department level. They are better able to leverage the right engagement channels and have the ability to access management and leadership roles at the department to garner support and drive overall initiative focus and success.
Adaptability: They allow for greater adaptability to unique departmental needs, which can be crucial in complex organizations. For example, the types of change management approaches and interventions that work for Sales organisations will be very different compared to that for call centres or processing centres, especially as employees transition into new roles. The ability for the change practitioner to adapt locally, supported by a strong company culture, can make or break an initiative’s success.
Innovation: Different units can experiment with various change approaches, leading to innovative solutions. This can be done without the confines of what is the overarching ‘standards and guidelines’ from the centralised change team.
Choosing the Right Structure
The decision regarding the optimal change management structure should be rooted in the organization’s specific context, culture, and the nature of the changes it is undergoing to establish a new status quo. Experienced change management specialists understand that a “one-size-fits-all” approach does not exist. Instead, they carefully consider the organization’s goals, resources, and capacity for change.
Also, it may not need to be either centralised or federated model. It can be a combination of both. For examples:
A federated model by reporting lines, however with a strong community of practice that is centralised and that promotes sharing of practices, standards, and even resources. This ensures that the overall group is connected to each other and new innovative approaches can be shared and proliferated
A centralised model by reporting lines, however with dedicated business-specific change partners that are focused on particular business units so that they are delivering business-focused change solutions. At the same time, the team still maintains a lot of the advantages of a centralised team.
The organisational structure and reporting lines for a change practice may influence various aspects of its work, however, this may not be the most critical part of how it creates value for the organisation. Other aspects in which a change practice should focus on in its development include:
Resourcing model. How to fund change management resources and the service delivery model to support a range of different projects with different needs for seniority, skill set, and even organisational tenure
Change methodology/framework. Organisations should work on at least a change management framework to set a minimum standard for change delivery. Using a generic off-the-shelf methodology may be OK, however they may not cater for the particular language and business needs of the organisation.
Change capability and leadership. Outside of project change delivery, the team should also work on gradually building change capability within the organisation to enhance the ability to drive and support change. This may not need to be in the form of training, it can also be done through structured development through real change projects.
Change portfolio/Enterprise change management. Beyond individual change delivery, the change team should also focus on how to deliver and land multiple initiatives at the same time. Most organisations need to drive change at a faster speed than previously and there is no luxury to only focus on one change at a time. How the team measures, tracks, and ‘traffic controls’ the multiple initiatives is crucial for its success.
To read more about managing a change portfolio visit our Change Portfolio Management section for a range of articles.
Change management structures and reporting lines are not just administrative choices; they can, in some ways, have a profound impact on an organization’s ability to achieve successful change outcomes. Experienced change management specialists must weigh the benefits and drawbacks of centralized and federated structures and align them with the specific needs of their organization. By doing so, they can maximize their ability to navigate the complexities of change and drive the organization toward a more agile, resilient, and adaptive future.
Exploring Organisational Structures for Optimal Enterprise Change Management
Change is an inherent part of every organization’s journey towards growth and adaptability in an ever-evolving business landscape. In the realm of change management, one critical consideration is the type of organizational change structure or organizational design that best facilitates successful enterprise change management and boosts organizational performance. There are plenty of different ways to structure change management practices. Like any type of organizational structures for organisations overall, there is not one way that is the most effective. It depends on the circumstances of the company in concern.
Understanding Change Management Structures
Centralized Change Management Structure
Centralized change management structures consolidate the authority, decision-making, and oversight of change initiatives within a single, dedicated team or department. In such a new structure, the change management team sometimes reports directly to either Strategy or Office of the CEO. This approach provides the change practice significant influence due to its direct linkage with strategy.
Reporting Lines: HR, IT, Strategy, and More
In addition to the choice between centralized and federated structures, change management specialists (and the senior leaders that they report to) often grapple with determining the optimal reporting lines for their change teams. Several departments within an organization are typically considered for hosting the change management function:
1. Human Resources (HR or People & Culture)
Reporting to HR aligns change management with employee/organisational development and engagement while also ensuring the support employees need throughout the process. This can be particularly effective when change initiatives heavily impact the workforce, as HR possesses expertise in people-related matters.
2. Information Technology (IT)
With the increasing digitalization of business processes, reporting to IT can ensure that complex technology-driven changes are well led and managed across the enterprise. The remit for change practices reporting to IT can range from including just technology changes, to all strategic and funded initiatives, through to all of change management as a function.
3. Strategy or Transformation Office
Reporting to the strategy or transformation office closely ties change management to the organization’s overarching strategic goals. This alignment ensures that change initiatives are directly linked to long-term vision and objectives.
4. Operations
For a lot of organisations, the Operations function can determine a lot about how the organisation is run. This can include the change management function as well. The advantage of having the change practice reporting to Operation can mean that the operating rhythm of the organisation can be designed with the right change management approaches. The way employees are engaged, how they’re involved, and how BAU processes are run, measured, and reported can be designed with change management interventions.
Key benefits of a centralized structure include:
Consistency: Centralized control ensures consistent change management practices across the organization, reducing confusion and increasing effectiveness in terms of setting a common level of practice. Consistency in terms of language and concepts mean that it is easier for the business to adopt change management principles and practices.
Resource Allocation: Easier resource allocation, as the centralized team can prioritize and allocate resources based on organizational priorities. With better economy of scale for a larger centralised team, the change group has the opportunity to resource initiatives using different levels of involvement, from sessional, part-time to full-time.
Alignment: Enhanced alignment with the organization’s strategic objectives, as the change management team directly interfaces with top leadership. This means that effort and focus areas as more likely to be on that which is most strategic and can impact the organisation the most.
Change maturity. The change practice has the opportunity to focus on building organisation-wide change maturity due to its ability to interface and influence across the organisation. While other change management structures may also have the ability to focus on building business change maturity, a centralised function has the advantage of having a greater impact level due to its scale.
In contrast, federated change management structures distribute change management responsibilities throughout various business units or departments. Each business unit maintains its own change management team, and these teams collaborate to execute change initiatives. Typically, these teams report to their respective department heads. This means that there is no formal enterprise change management function.
The advantages of a federated structure include:
Local Expertise: Greater understanding of department-specific needs and challenges, leading to tailored change strategies and therefore better change outcomes. Different business units can have very different cultures and different business needs. Having change professionals who understand the various intricacies of the business unit means that they’re able to design change approaches that will better meet business requirements.
Ownership and relationship: There may be increased ownership and commitment among departmental staff, as the change teams sits in the same business unit and are ‘one of them’ versus someone sent from a centralised team. Others in the business unit may be more conducive to advice and support from a colleague in the same broader business unit. It is also easier to establish a closer working relationship if the change practitioner is always working with the same teams.
Flexibility: Greater adaptability to changes in individual departments, as they can independently address unique issues. Without any direction from a central team, the business-dedicated team can better flex their service offering to meet the business unit’s particular focus areas. Whilst, a central team may de-prioritise departmental-level initiatives to be less critical, for a departmental team it is much easier to flex toward their priorities.
Impact on Business Results
The choice of change management structure and reporting lines can significantly impact an organization’s overall business results. Here’s how different structures can yield varying outcomes:
Centralized Structure Outcomes
Efficiency: Centralized structures can excel in efficiency of delivery due to its scale of economy. Whereas small departmental change teams may structure to flex and resource projects efficiently, larger change practices can avoid this by leveraging its range of practitioners with different levels of skill sets and availability.
Consistency: They ensure a consistent approach to change management, reducing confusion among business stakeholders and employees. The consistency of standards also mean that there is less risk that initiatives may experienced a change intervention that is less effective due to the centralised capability standards reinforced.
Top-Down Control: Change initiatives are closely aligned with strategic objectives set by top leadership. This means that any ‘pet projects’ or less prioritised divisional initiatives may not be as likely to be granted change management support. This does not necessarily mean that those departments won’t focus on those initiatives, it just means that change management resources are more prioritised toward what top leadership deems to be most critical.
Federated Structure Outcomes
Local Engagement: Federated structures promote local ownership and engagement, fostering a sense of responsibility among departmental staff. Department-specific change practitioners will be more familiar with ‘what works’ at the department level. They are better able to leverage the right engagement channels and have the ability to access management and leadership roles at the department to garner support and drive overall initiative focus and success.
Adaptability: They allow for greater adaptability to unique departmental needs, which can be crucial in complex organizations. For example, the types of change management approaches and interventions that work for Sales organisations will be very different compared to that for call centres or processing centres. The ability for the change practitioner to adapt locally can make or break an initiative’s success.
Innovation: Different units can experiment with various change approaches, leading to innovative solutions. This can be done without the confines of what is the overarching ‘standards and guidelines’ from the centralised change team.
Choosing the Right Structure
The decision regarding the optimal change management structure should be rooted in the organization’s specific context, culture, and the nature of the changes it is undergoing. Experienced change management specialists understand that a “one-size-fits-all” approach does not exist. Instead, they carefully consider the organization’s goals, resources, and capacity for change.
Also, it may not need to be either centralised or federated model. It can be a combination of both. For examples:
A federated model by reporting lines, however with a strong community of practice that is centralised and that promotes sharing of practices, standards, and even resources. This ensures that the overall group is connected to each other and new innovative approaches can be shared and proliferated
A centralised model by reporting lines, however with dedicated business-specific change partners that are focused on particular business units so that they are delivering business-focused change solutions. At the same time, the team still maintains a lot of the advantages of a centralised team.
The organisational structure and reporting lines for a change practice may influence various aspects of its work, however, this may not be the most critical part of how it creates value for the organisation. Other aspects in which a change practice should focus on in its development include:
Resourcing model. How to fund change management resources and the service delivery model to support a range of different projects with different needs for seniority, skill set, and even organisational tenure
Change methodology/framework. Organisations should work on at least a change management framework to set a minimum standard for change delivery. Using a generic off-the-shelf methodology may be OK, however they may not cater for the particular language and business needs of the organisation.
Change capability and leadership. Outside of project change delivery, the team should also work on gradually building change capability within the organisation to enhance the ability to drive and support change. This may not need to be in the form of training, it can also be done through structured development through real change projects.
Change portfolio/Enterprise change management. Beyond individual change delivery, the change team should also focus on how to deliver and land multiple initiatives at the same time. Most organisations need to drive change at a faster speed than previously and there is no luxury to only focus on one change at a time. How the team measures, tracks, and ‘traffic controls’ the multiple initiatives is crucial for its success.
To read more about managing a change portfolio visit our Change Portfolio Management section for a range of articles.
Change management structures and reporting lines are not just administrative choices; they can, in some ways, have a profound impact on an organization’s ability to achieve successful change outcomes. Experienced change management specialists must weigh the benefits and drawbacks of centralized and federated structures and align them with the specific needs of their organization. By doing so, they can maximize their ability to navigate the complexities of change and drive the organization toward a more agile, resilient, and adaptive future.
How to Change Behaviour in the Workplace: A Complete Guide
In almost every change initiative there is an element of behaviour change. For some initiatives, the behaviour change in adopting a new habit required is large and complex whilst for others it can be as small as pressing different buttons and using a different user interface. Effective behaviour change, including incorporating new procedures, is one of the most critical outcomes that the change practitioner can hope to achieve. With the achievement of desired behaviours come the ultimate benefit associated with an initiative. On the other hand, not achieving the behaviour change targeted means that the change has not succeeded.
Given the importance of behaviour change in every initiative this article aims to cover key aspects of how a change practitioner should approach and design the behaviour change. Yet, successfully designing and implementing behaviour change is one of the most challenging tasks for the change practitioner. It is common place that many change practitioners do not have the experience to know how to achieve successful behaviour change.
The definition of behaviour change
So what is behaviour change?
Behaviour change “refer(s) to any transformation or modification of human behaviour”.
This seems like a fairly general definition that is all-encompassing and can include anything ranging from behaviour change in a psychological context or in a social or workplace context.
However, a key part of behaviour change is to recognise that behaviour, by definition, must be observable in some Shape or form. A behaviour can be verbal, non-verbal, or physical behaviour. However, a behaviour cannot be ‘perception’ or ‘thinking’ since these cannot be observed nor displayed necessarily.
Another feature of behaviour change is that the behaviour is to be changed from the current state to a future state. The quantum of the change determines the complexity of the change required and the extent to which a series of change interventions is required to achieve the desired future state. This means, if the behaviour change is easy from the impacted person’s perspective, then the change approach can be fairly light and does not need to be complex. However, if the quantum of the change is large, then a heavy design of change interventions is expected to achieve the outcome.
Some examples of behaviour change within a change initiative context includes:
Using a different computer program interface with different layout or keystroke steps in performing tasks
Different process steps required in disclosing financial details in business reporting
Proactive coaching employees through feedback to improve sales effectiveness
Reporting on risk incidents that are not compliant with company standards
Actively establishing rapport with the customer to demonstrate empathy by acknowledging their feelings and demonstrating effective listening
Speak up against bullying behaviours amongst colleagues
The importance of focusing on behaviour change
Inexperienced change practitioners will normally just followed the standard cookie-cutter approach of filling out the various change templates such as stakeholder matrix, change impact assessment, and a change plan. And then proceed to develop a communications plan or a learning plan as a part of experiential learning before executing on implementation.
So what is wrong with this?
As called out previously, in almost every change initiative there is a set of desired behaviours required to achieve the end state of the change initiative. The job of the change practitioner is to figure this out and design a change program around the achievement of these behaviours. Just by filling in templates and carrying out standard change approaches will most likely not achieve the targeted behaviours.
For example, in transitioning users from an old ERP system to a new digital system with a new look and feel, it is critical to identify the core behaviours required in the new state. Is it that in using the new digital system the user has access to a lot more timely data and therefore the behaviour change needs to be around 1) proactively checking for data and derive insights and 2) use these insights and data to make better decisions.
This means that if you were to just focus on communicating the change and train employees on how to use the new digital system, the whole project may not be deemed to be successful. This is because it is simply a project of ‘installation’ of a new system. However, the benefits targeted by the new digital system is about employees gaining more insights through the ability to easily access a range of data previously not available. Employees may know how to use the new system but it does not mean that they will automatically exhibit these desired behaviours.
One of the tricky things about behaviours is the ‘knowing’ vs. ‘doing’ conundrum. Just because someone knows how to do something it does not mean they will necessarily do it. Just because there is a pedestrian path, it does not mean that everyone will always use it. In a similar way, just because someone knows that the company wants him/her to document sales activities, it does not equate that all sales people will document all sales activities. In fact, in practice, we know that spending time on ‘admin’ such as documenting and entering sales activities into a system is often the last thing sales people want to do.
In the next section we will cover how to drive behaviour change.
How to achieve behaviour change
BJ Fogg model
Dr BJ Fogg is a Stanford professor who founded the Behavior Design Lab at Stanford University. BJ Fogg also wrote the New York Times bestseller ‘Tiny Habits’. What I love about this is that the Fogg model is incredibly simple and practical. It is grounded and backed up by significant empirical research and not just an ‘opinion’.
The Fogg model highlights 3 key elements that must converge at the same time for a behaviour to occur.
1. Motivation – Different motivators have different impacts on behaviour
2. Ability – This refers to how easy it is to undertake a behaviour. Some characteristics include time, money, physical effort, brain cycles (or ease of understanding and processing the task at hand), social deviance (the extent to which a behaviour is out of the social norm), and non-routine (behaviour that disrupts an existing routine)
3. Prompt/Trigger – These are reminders of events that prompt a particular behaviour. It could be an alarm, an associated image/event/person/scent, etc that reminds the person of the behaviour.
The power of this model is in its simplicity. You can apply this to any change initiative and the model will guide your thinking on how to design effective behaviour change. When something feels easy to do (low ability), then it will not require a lot of motivation to do it. Alternatively, when something is perceived as very hard to do, then it will require very high motivation to understate the behaviour. The key is to aim above the line. So, either focusing on increasing ability or increasing motivation will result in above the curved line, which means the behaviour taking place.
Example of applying the Fogg model
Case: You are implementing a cost cutting exercise due to the impact of Covid on the organisation. As a result of this exercise, the impacted employees will need to pick up parts of the roles of others who have been let go. The behaviour change required is that impacted employees will need to cover a broader set of tasks and at times have a heavier workload as a result.
Application:
Motivation: The impacted employee’s motivation is currently impacted after seeing their fellow colleagues lose their jobs and hence feeling worried that their jobs may be impacted. This is despite reassurances from senior managers that no more jobs will be cut for the time being. The challenge will be to sufficiently motivate these employees by continuously reassuring them of their job safety and working through the transition of having a broader role responsibility. Appealing to the focus on supporting customers and not letting them down may be a theme to reinforce.
Ability: It is critical to assess to what extent impacted employees are able to carry out new tasks assigned from a skill perspective. Training or coaching may be required. The other area to address is workload concerns. The perception that a heavy workload is required will hinder their likelihood of carrying out the additional responsibilities. Workload prioritisation and protocols are key topics to talk through to reassure employees how workload may eventuate during heavy periods.
Trigger: Different triggers may be designed to remind and reinforce the uptake of new accountabilities. These may include manager 1:1s, team reporting, open visual display of performance indicators, email reminders, colleague reinforcement/coaching, etc.
According to the Fogg model if the new accountabilities are significant it would be best to break these down into smaller behaviour increments vs a ‘big bang’ transition. It could be that there is a gradual transition whereby a period of continuous coaching is required after gradually introducing new sets of tasks for the employee to uptake and practice. After the transition period is completed, the employee then formally uptakes on the full accountabilities.
According to research findings, it is much easier to adopt the new behaviours if the discrete behaviours are broken down to small increment behaviours. Fogg has used lots of different examples of this one of which is doing push-ups. He started by doing 10. Then he would add 1 more every day to the push-up exercise, eventually getting to 100 push-ups. Adding a trigger to the new behaviour is also critical. For example, Fogg gave the example of doing sit-ups first thing in the morning as soon as you get up or doing pushups after going to the toilet. The event of getting up or going to the toilet then becomes a trigger for the new behaviour.
Cognitive Behavioural approaches to behaviour change.
Cognitive behavioural therapy is a widely established clinical approach to changing behaviours in patients suffering from various psychological conditions or disorders. Cognitive approaches are based on the fact that the way one thinks determines one’s reaction and therefore one’s behaviour. For example, self-talk is a mechanism to change one’s opinion or perception. Constantly reinforcing and verbalising positive statements about oneself may improve one’s own perception of oneself. Alternatively, constant negative self-talk leads to negative self-perception.
Behavioural approaches are based on research that started with Pavlov’s research on dogs where he associated bells as a trigger for food. After a period of time, every time the dogs heard the bell they would start salivating, with salivating being the behaviour. This process of associating a trigger with a behavioural reaction is also called ‘conditioning’. The process of conditioning is to ‘re-program’ the subject so that a new behaviour is introduced in reaction to a trigger.
There are many ways in which cognitive behavioural approaches may be applied to changing a person’s behaviour. For example, lets use the previous example of implementing a new system.
Creating or changing impression of the new system
A communications campaign may be devised to create or change the existing impression of the new system. This would be similar to any marketing campaign that associated particular imagery or messages with a feeling or impression. Over a period of repetition, the employees will start to associate positive impressions and key messages with the new system. Any tag-lines that are reinforced by manager briefings or town hall sessions would also act the reinforce the same messages.
As a part of the formal training for the new system, it could be that other than learning the ins and outs of operating the new system, the employee needs to be more proactive in looking at customer information to provide more value-add suggestions to the customer. Practices during the session, along with small nudges and subsequent reinforcements by the team leader or manager, through a corporate social learning platform, would act to build the behaviour change.
The trigger for new behaviours could be any acronyms, diagrams, tag lines, or pictures, and short videos and infographics created as a part of the campaign or training content. It is however important that there is a period of positive reinforcement or else the behaviour may not occur. The reinforcement may take form in terms of manager support, communication messages, prizes, competitions, and reporting on behaviour progress.
This is why post-release embedment is so important as the embedment process focuses on constantly reinforcing the behaviour so that it becomes second nature. Without this, the newly acquired behaviour will not be sustained. This is like exercise. Exercising a few times and your body starting to get the drift of what to do is just the start of the change. Without a period of constant exercising, it will not become a habit.
The other important cognitive behavioural approach to embedding new behaviour is ensuring adequate and effective social support. Some employees may be quite self-sufficient and are able to resolve any system issues themselves. Others may require a lot more hand-holding. This is why there must be change champions in place who can coach and support employees, as highlighted by social learning theory, as an effective way to support the right behaviours and resolve any obstacles in adopting the new system fully.
How to measure behaviours
Measuring behaviours is absolutely critical because without effective measurement it is difficult to ascertain to what extent the desired behaviours have been obtained and sustained. It is the old adage “What gets measured matters”.
So what are some of the ways in which to measure behaviours? These are some common examples.
Manager rating based on observation
Video recording
Phone/call listening
Attendance (e.g. training)
Test
System/digital reporting that tracks behaviour in a system
Employee-wide surveys specifically designed to focus on targeted behaviours
What categories in which to measure behaviours?
There are many considerations or dimensions in measuring behaviours. The following are some of these:
Time: How long would you want to measure the behaviours to ensure that they have fully embedded and incorporated into business-as-usual. Typical practice is several months after the ‘release’. Tracking reinforces behaviours. This means the longer the tracking mechanism continues – the more likelihood the behaviours will last longer
Level of behaviour change: Is the behaviour being measured black and white in its determination? I.e. is it easy to categories if the behaviour has occurred or not? Or are there different levels of behaviour achievement? E.g. If you are measuring if call centre staff has exhibited behaviour is reviewing customer data and offer suggestions, are there different levels of ‘value add’ behaviours based on customer data, in which case there could be a scale to rate this. Alternatively, it could also be a yes/no type of classification
Frequency: How frequent is the behaviour being displayed? Is it that the goal is to promote the frequency of the desired behaviour? Or are there certain limits expected? For example, if we would like call centre staff to offer value add calls with the customer, are there particular ‘ceilings’ or limited after which it may no longer be valuable for the customer?
Situational considerations: Ranking and classifying behaviours should also always consider situational factors. For example, it could be that the customer was not in the right emotional state to receive value-add suggestions and therefore the behaviour would not be appropriate for that situation. It could also be that the call centre consultant has been suffering from sickness or has been struggling with family difficulties and therefore for a period of time was not performing effectively. As a result, previously acquired behaviours could have dropped temporarily
How do we drive full embedment of behaviours?
These are some key call-outs in ensuring that the behaviours you have set out to transition to not only are achieved but are sustained, and to prevent relapse. Pretty much all aspects of change could determine the extent to which behaviours become adopted or not.
1. Executive sponsorship and drive. You will hear a lot of this in literature and articles that with executive sponsorship and drive it is much easier for behaviours to be sustained.
2. Employee community support and reinforcement. This point acts almost as the balancing point of the previous one. With sufficient employee community support and reinforcement, it is possible to drive continual behavioural reinforcement even without strong executive sponsorship.
3. Measurement and reporting. With the right measurement and reporting, employees receive feedback on what their performance has been, and this constant feedback acts as a strong reinforcement feedback loop for managers, training teams, and their direct reports. This is especially the case if everyone can see others’ behavioural performance. It could be by business unit or individual, but ‘naming and shaming’ can work if that is consistent with the organisational cultural values.
4. Early and continuous engagement. This is a change management 101 point. With early and continuous engagement workflow, impacted team members will feel much more engaged with the change. As a result, they will want to exhibit the desired behaviours to make it a success because they feel that they are the ones driving the changes. Alternatively, if the change is perceived as designed and implemented by another party without consultation with the impacted group, there could be resistance or a lack of embedment during the contemplation phase.
5. Culture of continuous improvement. A culture of continuous improvement can also support continual and full embedment of behaviours. If there is a strong culture of analysing the current performance and working on root cause analysis for performance improvement, along with teamwork on appropriate actions to improve performance, then behaviours will be adopted. In this situation, any situational or personal factors or not exhibiting behaviours may be called out and addressed to achieve the targeted outcome.
Complexity of embedding multiple behaviours across multiple initiatives
Most organisations are implementing multiple initiatives at the same time. This is the norm as organisations stay competitive, stay relevant, and in business. When multiple projects are going on all driving seemingly different behaviours.
How do we embed multiple behaviours?
1. Understand the different behaviours across initiatives. Rather than focusing on every single behaviour driven by every initiative, the key is to capture and record the top few behaviours targeted by each initiative. For large organisations with lots of initiatives, this may seem like an impossible feat. It could be organising 1-2 workshops to capture these behaviours. Do note that different initiatives may be at different stages of the product life cycle and therefore it may not be possible to capture all behaviours at a particular point in time. Having a regular change portfolio meeting where this could be discussed and captured iteratively would be ideal.
The Change Compass has just released a feature to aid the collection of core behaviours across initiatives so that these may be analysed, understood, and linked to aid better implementation alignment. You can tag key target behaviours to each initiative or project. For example, customer-centricity or efficiency. Then you can look through those initiatives impacting one part of the business and the core behaviours being driven across multiple initiatives.
2. Analyse and group the captured behaviours. After compiling the behaviours across initiatives the next step is to group and understand them.
Are there behaviours that are part of the same theme? For example, what are initiatives that are promoting a closer focus on the customer by promoting better listening and empathy skills?
Are there any behaviours that are ‘contradictory’ to other behaviours? Here is a real example. For a bank, one initiative was tasked to retire and close off a particular credit card due to a lack of profitability. However, at the same time, the same team was asked to try and sell more of their business unit head to meet their sales target.
3. Examine behaviours that are grouped into the same theme and think of ways to better align and join the dots to improve execution and behaviour embedment. This step is the most crucial step and involves running workshops across initiatives to better align approaches and plan for synergistic implementation of change across initiatives. Key discussion points or opportunities may include:
Aligning key messages and positioning for common behavioural themes. For example, if 2 initiatives are focused on improving customer-centric, how might these better align their communication activities, look and feel of communications collateral, wording, and positioning of behaviours.
Align, cross-leverage and cross-reference learning content. If multiple initiatives are all driving common behaviours, can content be cross-reinforced across multiple initiatives to drive a consistent and aligned user experience? This also ensures that there is no duplication of efforts in covering the same content
Align the sequencing and implementation of change activities. If 2 initiatives are both driving similar behaviours, can the various change activities be better sequenced and aligned to drive a better outcome than 2 separate siloed approaches? For example, can the executive sponsor speak to both initiatives in their town hall address, and can change champions be cross-leveraged to talk about both initiatives to help impacted teams join the dots around the common behaviours?
Successful and fully embedded behavioural change is the epitome of successful change and transformation initiatives. Achieving this is not always easy but having the right focus and adopting a structured approach to design behaviour change will ensure initiative success. Don’t be afraid of experimenting to test different ways in which to drive behaviour change. Keep iterating with different approaches to drive the full adoption of behaviours, which in turn will then ensure the full achievement of initiative benefits.
