Are You Too Fixated on the Change Maturity of Your Organisation?

Are You Too Fixated on the Change Maturity of Your Organisation?

by | Change maturity, Change Measurement, Portfolio management

As a change management practitioner, your mission is to guide organisations through change, building their ability to manage transitions effectively and sustainably. A major part of this work often involves helping organisations develop their “change maturity” — the capacity to continuously and successfully deliver change. Many experienced change practitioners focus on moving organisations along this maturity curve, seeing it as a vital part of creating a culture that embraces and sustains transformation.

However, in this pursuit, there’s a potential risk: becoming too fixated on achieving “change maturity” can cloud your judgment about what the organisation really needs. You may find yourself caught up in the desire to build structured change processes, educate stakeholders on every change theory, or create complex frameworks to assess and elevate change capability. While these elements are important, an over-reliance on them can impede progress. In some cases, your organisation might be more capable of managing change than you think, but your approach could be holding them back.

There are several common areas where change practitioners may become too focused on change maturity — and how this focus can actually hinder their ability to support successful, meaningful change. We’ll delve into how overemphasising change terminology, processes, structures, and risk-averse approaches can become obstacles to progress. By understanding and addressing these potential pitfalls, you can better align your support with the unique needs and readiness of your organisation, enabling a smoother, more effective path to support successful change.

Are You Too Quick to Label Your Organisation as Change Immature?

One of the first traps experienced change practitioners might fall into is quickly labeling their organisation as “change immature.” It’s tempting to assess an organisation’s change capability through the lens of formal change frameworks and models, but by doing so, you may be discounting their informal ability to adapt to change.

In other words, is your ‘label’ placed on the organisation a potential self-fulfilling prophecy?  For example, if you see the organisation as mildly change mature, your approach and lens may all be geared around this label and expectation.

Organisations that have not formally defined their change management processes or have not made concerted efforts to assess their change maturity might seem “immature” on the surface. But that doesn’t mean they lack the inherent capacity to change. In many cases, businesses have evolved and navigated transitions without formal change models in place, relying on their leadership, adaptability, and problem-solving capabilities.

Example: Mislabeling the Organisation’s Maturity

Consider a large, successful organisation with a history of navigating mergers, market shifts, and product innovation. While this company may have never formalised a change management function or assessed its change maturity, its survival and success prove that it has navigated complex changes in the past. You, as the change practitioner, might arrive and see that the business lacks a formal change methodology like Prosci or Kotter, so you label them as immature. As a result, you might start recommending a highly cautious, structured approach to “bring them up to speed.”

However, this label can lead to unnecessary delays. Rather than imposing new structures or over-engineering the process, it could be more effective to build on the organisation’s existing ways of working. The business may already have the right instincts, and simply needs to refine its approach to handle more formalised, larger-scale change efforts.

This cautious approach of assuming immaturity often leads to missed opportunities for progress. It slows down the pace of change and leaves businesses feeling that they are incapable of handling large-scale change without significant external help.

Change Terminology and Concepts: Over-Education vs. Practical Implementation

Another common pitfall is becoming too focused on educating stakeholders about change management concepts and frameworks, rather than focusing on practical implementation. It’s easy for experienced change practitioners to get caught up in explaining the intricacies of change theories, but the reality is that many stakeholders may not need or want this level of detail.

Stakeholders, especially those in senior leadership positions, are often more interested in results than in the underlying change management theories. Spending too much time educating them on ADKAR, Kotter’s 8-step process, or Lewin’s model can divert attention from the critical issue: how to implement the change in their specific organisational context.

Using and coaching your stakeholders on implementing change without change methodology is a skill, but one that can be critical.

Example: Change Concepts vs. Actionable Strategies

Imagine working on a digital transformation project where the leadership team is eager to see results. Instead of diving straight into how the change will be implemented, you spend the first few weeks educating the leaders on the theory behind change management, explaining why each stage of the ADKAR model is important and why a structured approach is necessary. While these concepts are valuable, the leadership team is left feeling overwhelmed by jargon and disconnected from the practicalities of the change they need to deliver.

A more effective approach in this situation might be to focus on practical, actionable strategies that are action-based learning. Instead of over-explaining change concepts, walk stakeholders through the steps they need to take, provide them with tools to manage resistance, and give them clear, real-time metrics on progress. In many cases, stakeholders don’t need an in-depth lesson on change theory—they need guidance on how to lead change within their teams, how to prepare and engage effectively, and how to overcome resistance.

Even if you don’t focus on education, and instead label them as change immature.  This in itself can be dangerous and unhelpful.  As a result you don’t implement the right approaches to support the change required to achieve their business goals.

While it’s essential to help stakeholders understand the principles behind change, overemphasis on theoretical knowledge can take the focus away from delivering the change itself.

Processes and Structures: Building New or Leveraging Existing?

One of the hallmarks of a maturing change organisation is the establishment of formal structures and processes to support change. Communities of practice, change champion networks, formalised governance bodies, and change management offices all play vital roles in building long-term change capability. However, there’s a risk of becoming too focused on building these structures rather than finding ways to work within the current framework of the organisation.

When faced with the task of improving change capability, many practitioners instinctively begin to build new structures from scratch. However, this can add complexity and create parallel processes that the business may not be equipped to handle. Sometimes, rather than introducing new structures, the better approach is to refine and optimise existing business processes and forums to embed change more naturally.

Example: Building New Structures vs. Leveraging Existing Ones

Consider an organisation that already has strong cross-functional governance in place for operational projects. Instead of introducing a new change champion network, you could work with the existing project governance structures to ensure change management principles are integrated into these meetings. By adapting existing forums to include change discussions, you avoid creating extra layers of complexity and leverage routines that are already familiar to the business.

The challenge is to balance the need for formal change structures with the desire to minimise disruption to current workflows. Often, the most effective approach is to enhance existing structures rather than building entirely new ones. This also helps to prevent the perception that change management is an “additional burden” rather than an integrated part of business operations.

‘Babying’ Your Stakeholders: Are You Doing the Change for Them?

As a change practitioner, it’s natural to want to help stakeholders navigate the complexities of change. But there’s a fine line between supporting your stakeholders and doing the change for them. When you step in to handle every aspect of the change process, you risk undermining your stakeholders’ ability to build their own change capability.

The goal of change management is to empower the business to manage change independently. If you are too involved in managing the change, you can inadvertently create dependency, where stakeholders rely on you to handle resistance, communications, or decision-making. This not only stifles their growth but also prevents the organisation from building a sustainable, internal capacity for change.

Example: Over-Involvement vs. Coaching for Capability Building

Suppose you’re leading a change initiative in a large organisation, and you find yourself handling most of the communications, solving problems that arise, and managing resistance from teams. While you may feel that you’re helping, the reality is that your stakeholders are becoming overly dependent on you to manage the change.

A more effective approach is to take a coaching stance. Rather than doing the change for them, help your stakeholders learn how to anticipate resistance, communicate effectively, and manage change within their teams. Offer guidance and support, but resist the temptation to take over. When you empower stakeholders to lead the change themselves, you help them build the confidence and skills they need to manage future changes more independently.

The key is to recognise when your involvement is crossing the line from support into doing the change for them. The more you can coach and mentor your stakeholders, the more resilient and capable the organisation will become.

Setting the Bar Too Low for Your Organisation

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated something profound about people and organisations: they are capable of changing far more quickly than we might have thought. Practically overnight, organisations adapted to remote working, adopted new technologies, and restructured their operations. This rapid adaptation showed that many organisations have far more resilience and capacity for change than we often give them credit for.

But in the post-pandemic world, are you still setting the bar too low for your organisation? Are you approaching change cautiously because you assume the business is not capable of rapid adaptation? If so, you may be underestimating their ability to handle larger-scale change or more ambitious transformation initiatives.

Example: Underestimating Organisational Capacity

Imagine working with an organisation that wants to implement a large-scale digital transformation. You might assume that because the business has not undertaken such a significant change before, they will need to move cautiously, taking small steps toward change maturity. However, given the right leadership support, clear communication, and resources, the organisation might be able to implement the transformation far more quickly and effectively than anticipated.

The key is to challenge your assumptions about the organisation’s capacity for change. Instead of setting the bar too low and taking overly cautious steps, consider where you can stretch the organisation’s potential. Businesses often have far more adaptability and resilience than we might assume, and by aiming higher, you can help them achieve more ambitious outcomes.  Again, COVID was a clear demonstration of what can be possible.

Caution vs. Progress: Finding the Right Balance

One of the biggest challenges for change practitioners is finding the right balance between caution and progress. In many cases, particularly with organisations that are newer to structured change management, a cautious approach may feel like the safest route. But taking overly cautious steps can prevent the organisation from achieving the level of change it needs to succeed.

The other side of the equation is pushing too hard, too fast. While organisations may have a greater capacity for change than we give them credit for, they also need time to adapt and build their change capability. The trick is to strike the right balance between ambitious progress and thoughtful pacing, especially iterative paced learning.

Example: Caution vs. Ambition in Portfolio-Level Change

Consider an organisation that is managing a portfolio of change initiatives. One approach is to take small, incremental steps to build change capability, slowly rolling out new processes and frameworks. While this approach may feel safe, it can prevent the business from keeping up with the volume and pace of change it needs to manage.

A more ambitious approach might involve embedding change management principles directly into business planning, governance, and decision-making. By integrating change management into existing processes, the organisation can manage a high volume of change more effectively without creating new silos or delays. This approach pushes the organisation to operate at a higher level, while still allowing time for adaptation and learning.

Adjusting Your Lens on Change Maturity

While change maturity is an important goal for any organisation, becoming too fixated on achieving it can inadvertently cloud your judgment and therefore negatively impact outcomes. Overemphasising change models, frameworks, and cautious steps can slow down the pace of change and underestimate the organisation’s capacity to evolve. As a change management practitioner, your role is not just to assess change maturity but to empower the organisation to grow and adapt.

By adjusting your lens and focusing on the organisation’s immediate needs and strengths, you can support more effective, sustainable change. This means balancing formal change processes with practical implementation, empowering stakeholders to lead the change themselves, and setting higher expectations for what the organisation can achieve.

The goal is not just to build change maturity, but to help the organisation experience navigating change in a way gives them confidence and meets their business goals.

The Danger of Using Go Lives to Report on Change Management Impacts

The Danger of Using Go Lives to Report on Change Management Impacts

by | Change Measurement, Designing change

In the world of change management, Go Lives are often seen as significant milestones. For many project teams, these events represent the culmination of months or even years of hard work, signaling that a new system, process, or initiative is officially being launched. It’s common for stakeholders to view Go Lives as a key indicator of the success of a change initiative. However, while Go Lives are undeniably important, relying on them as the primary measure of change impact can be misleading and potentially harmful to the overall change effort.

Go Lives are just one piece of the puzzle. Focusing too heavily on these milestones can lead to an incomplete understanding of the change process, neglecting crucial activities that occur both before and after Go Live. Let’s outline the risks associated with using Go Lives to report on change management impacts and offers best practices for a more holistic approach.

Go Lives: A Double-Edged Sword

Go Lives are naturally a focal point for project teams. They represent a clear, tangible goal, and the success of a Go Live can boost morale, validate the efforts of the team, and provide a sense of accomplishment. From a project delivery perspective, Go Lives are critical. They signal that the project has reached a level of maturity where it is ready to be released to the broader organization. In terms of resourcing and business readiness, Go Lives ensure that everything is in place for the new system or process to function as intended.

However, the very attributes that make Go Lives attractive can also make them problematic as indicators of change impact. The simplicity and clarity of a Go Live event can lead stakeholders to overestimate its significance, from a impacted business perspective. The focus on Go Lives can overshadow the complex and often subtle changes that occur before and after the event. While a successful Go Live is necessary for change, it is not sufficient to guarantee that the change will be successful in the long term.

The Pre-Go Live Journey: Laying the Foundation for Change

A significant portion of the change management journey occurs long before the Go Live date. During this pre-Go Live phase, various engagement and readiness activities take place that are critical to shaping the overall impact of the change. These activities include town hall meetings, where leaders communicate the vision and rationale behind the change, and briefing sessions that provide detailed information about what the change will entail.

Training and learning sessions are also a crucial component of the pre-Go Live phase. These sessions help employees acquire the necessary skills and knowledge to adapt to the new system or process. Discussions, feedback loops, and iterative improvements based on stakeholder input further refine the change initiative, ensuring it is better aligned with the needs of the organization.

These pre-Go Live activities are where much of the groundwork for successful change is laid. They build awareness, generate buy-in, and prepare employees for what is to come. Without these efforts, the Go Live event would likely be met with confusion, resistance, or outright failure. Therefore, it is essential to recognize that the impact of change is already being felt during this phase, even if it is not yet fully visible.

Post-Go Live Reality: The Real Work Begins

While the Go Live event marks a significant milestone, it is by no means the end of the change journey. In fact, for many employees, Go Live is just the beginning. It is in the post-Go Live phase that the true impact of the change becomes apparent. This is when employees start using the new system or process in their daily work, and the real test of the change’s effectiveness begins.

During this phase, the focus shifts from preparation to adoption. Employees must not only apply what they have learned but also adapt to any unforeseen challenges that arise. This period can be fraught with difficulties, as initial enthusiasm can give way to frustration if the change does not meet expectations or if adequate support is not provided.

Moreover, the post-Go Live phase is when the long-term sustainability of the change is determined. Continuous reinforcement, feedback, and support are needed to ensure that the change sticks and becomes embedded in the organization’s culture. Without these ongoing efforts, the change initiative may falter, even if the Go Live event was deemed a success.

The Risk of Misleading Stakeholders

One of the most significant dangers of focusing too heavily on Go Lives is the risk of misleading stakeholders. When stakeholders are led to believe that the Go Live event is the primary indicator of change impact, they may not fully appreciate the importance of the activities that occur before and after this milestone. This narrow focus can lead to a number of issues.

Firstly, stakeholders may prioritize the Go Live date to the exclusion of other critical activities. This can result in insufficient attention being paid to pre-Go Live engagement and readiness efforts or to post-Go Live adoption and support. As a consequence, the overall change initiative may suffer, as the necessary foundations for successful change have not been properly established.

Secondly, stakeholders may develop unrealistic expectations about the impact of the change. If they believe that the Go Live event will immediately deliver all the promised benefits, they may be disappointed when these benefits take longer to materialize. This can erode confidence in the change initiative and reduce support for future changes.

Finally, a narrow focus on Go Lives can create a false sense of security. If the Go Live event is successful, stakeholders may assume that the change is fully implemented and no further action is required. This can lead to complacency and a lack of ongoing support, which are essential for ensuring the long-term success of the change.

Best Practices for Reporting Change Management Impact

To avoid the pitfalls associated with relying on Go Lives as indicators of change impact, change management practitioners should adopt a more holistic approach to reporting. This involves considering the full scope of the change journey, from the earliest engagement activities to the ongoing support provided after Go Live. Here are some best practices for reporting on change management impact:

  1. Integrate Pre-Go Live Metrics:
    • Track and report on engagement activities, such as attendance at town hall meetings, participation in training sessions, and feedback from employees.
    • Monitor changes in employee sentiment and readiness levels throughout the pre-Go Live phase.
    • Report on aggregate pan-initiative change initiative impost on business units, pre-Go Live
  2. Emphasize Post-Go Live Support:
    • Develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of post-Go Live support, such as the number of help desk inquiries, employee satisfaction with the new system, and the rate of adoption.
    • Highlight the importance of continuous feedback loops to identify and address any issues that arise after Go Live.
    • Communicate the need for ongoing reinforcement and support to stakeholders, emphasizing that change is an ongoing process
    • Report on post-Go Live adoption time impost expected across initiatives
  3. Provide a Balanced View of Change Impact:
    • Ensure that stakeholders understand that Go Live is just one part of the change journey and that significant impacts occur both before and after this event.
    • Use a combination of quantitative and qualitative data to provide a comprehensive view of change impact.
    • Regularly update stakeholders on progress throughout the entire change journey, not just at the time of Go Live.
  4. Manage Expectations:
    • Clearly communicate to stakeholders that the full impact of the change may not be immediately visible at the time of Go Live.
    • Set realistic expectations about the timeline for realizing the benefits of the change.
    • Prepare stakeholders for potential challenges in the post-Go Live phase and emphasize the importance of ongoing support.

While Go Lives are important milestones in the change management process, they should not be used as the sole indicator of change impact. The journey to successful change is complex, involving critical activities before, during, and after the Go Live event. By adopting a more holistic approach to reporting on change management impact, practitioners can provide stakeholders with a more accurate understanding of the change journey, manage expectations more effectively, and ensure the long-term success of the change initiative.

The key takeaway is that change management is not just about delivering a project; it’s about guiding an organization through a journey of transformation. Go Lives are just one step in this journey, and it is the responsibility of leaders to ensure that every step is given the attention it deserves.

The ultimate guide to measuring change

The ultimate guide to measuring change

by | Change Initiatives, Change Measurement, Guides

Updated 26 January 2025

 

A lot of change practitioners are extremely comfortable with saying that change management is about attitudes, behaviours, and feelings and therefore we cannot measure them.  After all, a big chunk of change folks are more interested in people than numbers. This metaphor that change management is ‘soft’ extends into areas such as leadership and employee engagement whereby it may not be easy to measure and track things. However, is it really that because something is harder to measure and less black and white that there is less merit in measuring these?

“If you can’t measure it you can’t improve it” Peter Drucker”

In today’s fast-paced business environment, measuring change is no longer about static reports or manual tracking. With advancements in AI and automation, organisations can now leverage real-time data analytics, predictive tools, and automated insights to manage change effectively. This guide explores how these technologies are reshaping the way we measure and manage change.

The ‘why’ behind a lot of industry changes in our day and age come from the fact that data is now dominating our world. Data is a central part of everything that is changing in our world. Since we are now more reliant on the internet for information, the data that can be collected through our digital interactions around our lives are now driving change.

Data and measurement is all around us.  In fact our world would not exist without them.  Without data and measurement our phones would not work, our home security features would not work, TV stations would not function, the internet would not be on, lifts would not work and even traffic lights would not work.

At the workplace, most corporate work functions and departments rely on data to run and manage the business.  HR, Finance, Operations, Manufacturing, Risk, Procurement, IT, etc.  The list goes on.  In each of these departments data is an essential part of the day to day running of the function, without which the function cannot be run effectively.  They would not know if the performance is hitting targets.

Now with AI, companies are focused on data at an even greater level more than ever.  Without data, AI cannot work nor add value to organisations.  The backbone of AI is the ability to access vast amounts of data so that this can be used to automate and help us with our lives.

So if our world is surrounded by data, why are we not measuring it in managing change? To answer this question let’s look at what we are or are not measuring.

 

 

 

 

Starting at a project level, these are some of the common ways in which change is often measured:

 

1. Change readiness surveys

Change readiness surveys are usually online surveys sent by a project owner to understand how stakeholder groups are feeling about the change at different points in time throughout the project. It can be in the form of a Likert scale or free text. Most results are summarized into a quantitative scale of the degree in which the group is ready for change. A simple SurveyMonkey or Microsoft Form could be set up to measure stakeholder readiness for change.

It used to be that change readiness surveys were quite long and wordy.  Nowadays, a lot of change practitioners prefer to have shorter ‘pulse’ surveys as a way to regularly check on the stakeholder sentiments for readiness.  However, shorter surveys could mean a lack of depth in the feedback you are receiving and limited data to use to pivot as necessary to address any concerns. So, you may find out if your stakeholders are ready for change, but not why.  Ensure you balance ease and speed with insight and outcome.

The purpose of using change readiness surveys is to assess the stakeholders’ readiness for change.  The results from the survey will definitely inform the levels of readiness.  However, the survey itself may not be sufficient to conduct the assessment.  Simply asking what stakeholders feel may not be a holistic way of assessing their readiness.  To read more about conducting change readiness assessment strategically check out our article Beyond the Survey: A Strategic Lens on Change Readiness Assessment.

 

2. Training evaluation surveys

These evaluations are normally based on participant satisfaction across various categories such as content, instructor effectiveness, usefulness, etc. In a face-to-face training format, these surveys are normally paper-based so as to increase the completion rate. For online or virtual training, ratings may be completed by the user at the conclusion or after the session.

Considering that most organisations use virtual training formats, it is good practice to incorporate training evaluation at the conclusion of the session before the participants leave (after which it is almost impossible to get the satisfactory level of participant responses).

With the range of digital/AI-enabled tools on offer now, you can design training sessions in a way that requires much less and effort and gives you better results (to read more check out this link from Forbes).  Some of these features include:

– gamifying training content to make it more engaging, interesting and fun

– easily creating micro-courses with little instructional design expertise

– incorporate a range of media such as videos and pictures with little effort

– using avatars as instructors to host the content

– easily create quizzes and assessments (check out Change Automator feature to conduct assessments)

 

3. Communications metrics

One way in which communications may be measured is the ‘hit rate’ or the number of users/audience that views the article/material/page. This may be easily tracked using Google Analytics which not only tracks the number of views per page but also viewership by the time of day/week as well as audience demographic information as such gender and geographical locations.

There is also a range of digital tools on offer to track the effectiveness of communication efforts.  With Microsoft applications such as Yammer and Teams, there is already rich analytics capabilities on offer.  These include user/group activity, device type usage, etc.  Speak to your IT counterpart to access Microsoft Viva Engage which help you measure your community’s reach and engagement. You can find out more about the people, conversations, and questions & answers that make up your targeted communities.

There are also ways to A/B Test your communications message, whereby you have 2 different messages and test this with a smaller group fo audience to see which ones resonate or lead to more action.  You can also create 2 different versions of the same intranet page and test messaging this way.  When you have concluded the test you can then select the ‘winning’ version to the broader set of audience.  Speak to your corporate communications colleague to get their help to implement this.

 

4. Employee sentiments/culture surveys

There are some organizations that measure employee sentiments or culture over the year and often there are questions that are linked to change. These surveys tend to be short and based on a Likert scale with fewer open-ended questions for qualitative feedback. Since these surveys are often sent across the entire organization they are a ‘catch-all’ yardstick and may not be specific to particular initiatives.

There is now a range of AI tools to do text and sentiment analysis if your survey contains text items.  AI-powered tools now enable organisations to measure change through advanced metrics such as predictive capacity analysis to forecast resource strain, sentiment analysis to gauge stakeholder emotions in real time, and automated risk assessments that identify potential bottlenecks before they occur  All the major technology providers such as Microsoft, Amazon and IBM already provide these tools (some are even free).

These are some of the ways you can use AI tools right now:

– detect a range of emotions such as anxiety, anger, and disgust and based on response statistics through sentiment analysis

– cluster topics based on key response themes

– identify any data anomalies that you may want to exclude

– identify and label tone of voice of the responses, and classification such as positive, neutral, negative

– analyse trends over time

Data analysis and reporting can also be easily leveraged with the range of digital tools on offer.  Data analysis tools using AI can automated generate charts and dashboards for you with little effort.  Change Automator contains rich survey features that do exactly this, including:

– Easily selecting chart type with one click

– Leverage from AI-suggested data insights

– Generate predictive trends based on existing data

– Easily share charts and dashboards using different ways, including using a URL link

 

5. Change heatmaps

Some organizations devise change heatmaps on excel spreadsheets to try and map out the extent to which different business units are impacted by change. This artifact speaks to the amount of change and often leads to discussions concerning the capacity that the business has to ‘handle/digest’ change. The problem with most heatmaps is that they are usually categorised and rated by the creator of the artifact (or a limited number of people making judgments), and therefore subject to bias. Data that is based on 1 person’s opinions also tend not to have as much weight in a decision-making forum.

In fact, we highly recommend that you don’t use change heat maps as the only way to track change volume.  Instead, there is a range of other visuals such as bar charts, and timeline charts that are just as easy to interpret and are more insightful from a decision-making perspective.

Heatmaps are also by design categorical and not particularly precise.  It may be useful at a high level for understanding hot spots, but not one to use to make specific decisions concerning business capacity levels and corresponding challenges.

The following is an example of a Change heatmap that uses the standard red, amber green traffic light coding scheme.  This may play into the psychological bias of your audience interpreting red as bad and only focus on ‘alleviating’ the red.

 

6. Change initiative benefit tracking

In addition to typical change management measures, there are various initiatives-specific measures that focus on the actual outcome and benefit of the change with the goal of determining to what extent the change has taken place. Some examples of this include:

  • System usage rates

  • Cost reduction

  • Revenue increase

  • Transaction speed

  • Process efficiency

  • Speed of decision-making

  • Customer satisfaction rate

  • Employee productivity rate

  • Incidents of process violation

Example: Project based change management dashboard from Change Automator

 

Non-initiative based change management measures

There are two other measures that are used within an organizational vs. initiative-specific context, change leadership assessment and change maturity assessment. In the next section, we will discuss these two areas.

 

Change leadership assessment

David Miller from Changefirst wrote about 3 types of change leaders.:

1. The sponsor whose role is to drive the initiative to success from the beginning to the end. This involves possessing competencies in rallying and motivating people, building a strong network of sponsors, and communicating clearly to various stakeholder groups.

 

2. The influencer whose role is to leverage their network and influence to market and garner the traction required to make the initiative successful. Four types of influencers as identified by Changefirst includes:

a) Advocates who are great at promoting and advocating the benefits of the change

b) Connectors who are able to link and leverage people across a part of the organization to support the change

c) Controllers who have control over access to information and people and these could include administrators and operations staff

d) Experts who are viewed by others in the organization as being technically credible

 

3. The change agent is someone who is tasked with supporting the overall change in various ways, including any promotional activities, gaging different parts of the organization on the change and be able to influence, up, down and sideways across the organization to drive a successful change outcome.  Some call this the ‘change champion’.  They can be your key to influencing across the organisation.

Whilst there isn’t one industry standard tool for assessing change leadership competencies and capabilities. There are various change leadership assessment tools offered by Changefirst as well as other various smaller consulting firms. Some of the ways in which you can assess change leadership may include categories such as Goal Attainment, Flexibility, Decision Making, and Relationship Building.

Some of the key competencies critical in change leadership have been called out by Pagon & Banutal (2008), and include:

  • Goal attainment

  • Assessing organizational culture and climate

  • Change implementation

  • Motivating and influencing others

  • Adaptability

  • Stakeholder management

  • Collaboration

  • Build organizational capacity and capability for change

  • Maneuvering around organizational politics

There is a range of change leadership assessment offerings from various consulting firms.  Whichever one you choose, ensure that it is not overly simplistic and not ‘tested’ and therefore not reliable.  Assessments will only be useful if they have gone through the rigour of being tested, with the results showing that they are reliable can be trusted.  Anyone can ‘invent’ a simple survey with various leadership categories, but this does not mean they are actually valid.  Afterall, if you are asking your leaders to spend time to fill in an assessment survey, you want to be confident that the outcome of the assessment will provide sufficient insight.

Change maturity assessment

Organisations are increasingly realising that managing change initiative by initiative is no longer going to cut it as it does not enable organizational learning and growth. Initiatives come and go and those who rely on contractor change managers often find that their ability to manage change as an organization does not mature much across initiatives, especially across time.

Change maturity assessment is focused on building change capability across the organization across different dimensions, whether it be project change management, operational change or change leadership. The goal of conducting a change maturity assessment is to identify areas in which there may be a capability gap and therefore enable structured planning to close this gap.  The meaning of ‘capability’ does not just refer to people skills, but also to process and system capabilities.

Change maturity assessment results may prompt focus and action to improve change management capabilities if used in the right channels to influence the leadership and the business.

There are 2 major change maturity assessment models available in the market. The first is by Prosci and the second is by the Change Management Institute (CMI).  Read up more about CMI’s Organisational Change Maturity Model here.  To read more about change maturity assessment read out article A New Guide for Improving Change Management Maturity, where we outline how to improve change maturity throughout different business units across the organization.

A comprehensive model of Change Management Measures

In this diagram various change management measures are represented along two axes, one being the different phases of the initiative lifecycle, and the other being different organizational levels of project, business and enterprise in which change management measures fall into.

In the broad initiative phases of Plan, Execute and Realise there are various change measurements and assessments that may be applicable.  At the Business and Enterprise levels, these measurements and assessments are not so much split according to initiative phases.  Instead, they may be conducted periodically, for example change capacity and impost tracking may be done on a monthly basis, with change maturity assessment conducted at an annual basis.

Project level measures

1. ‘Plan’ phase

In this phase of the project, the team is discovering and scoping what the project involves and what the change is. As a result, the details are not known clearly at the commencement of the phase. Later in the phase the scope becomes much clearer and the team starts to plan what activities are required to implement the change.

  • The change complexity assessment evaluates how complex the project is. It looks at how many people could be impacted, what the size of the impact could be, how many business units are impacted, whether multiple systems and processes are impacted, etc.

  • Change resourcing costing. At the planning phase of the project cost required for the change management stream of the work is required. This includes such as any contractors, communication campaigns, learning cost, travel, and administration cost, just to name a few.

  • Change readiness assessment is usually conducted prior to the change and during the change. Usually, the same set of questions is asked of various stakeholder groups to assess their readiness for change.

2. ‘Execute’ phase

The execute phase is one of the most critical parts of the project. Activities are in full flight and the project is busy iterating and re-iterating changes to ensure successful execution to achieve project goals.

  • Communication and engagement tracking. Effective engagement of stakeholders in the change is absolutely critical. Stakeholder interviews, surveys, communication readership rates are all ways in which engagement may be tracked.

  • Learning tracking. Measuring learning is critical since it tracks to what extent the new competencies and skills have been acquired through learning interventions. Typical measurements include course tests or quizzes in addition to course evaluations. On the job performance may also be used to track learning outcomes and to what extent learning has been applied in the work setting.

  • Change readiness assessment continues to be critical to track during the execution phase of the project

3. ‘Realise’ phase

In this phase of the project the change has ‘gone live’ and most project activities have been completed. It is anticipated in this phase that the ‘change’ occurs and that the benefits can then be tracked and measured.

  • Change benefit tracking measures and tracks the extent to which the targeted benefits and outcomes have been achieved. Some of these measures may be ‘hard’ quantitative measures whilst others may be ‘soft’ measures that are more behavioural.

 

Business level measures

Business level measures are those that measure to what extent the business has the right ability, capacity, and readiness for the change.

  • Change heatmaps can help to visualize which part of the business is most impacted by 1 project or multiple projects. The power of the change heatmap is in visualizing which part of the business is the most impacted, and to compare the relative impacts across businesses. As the number of change initiatives increase so would the complexity of the change. When facing this situation organisations need to graduate from relying on excel spreadsheets to using more sophisticated data visualization tools to aid data-based decision making. To read more about change heatmaps and why this is not the only way to understand business change impact, go to The Death of the Change Heatmap.

  • Sponsor readiness/capability assessment can be a critical tool to help identify any capability gaps in the sponsor so that effort may be taken to support the sponsor. A strong and effective sponsor can make or break a change initiative. Early engagement and support of the sponsor are critical. Both Prosci, as well as Changefirst, have sponsor competency assessment offerings.

  • Change champion capability assessment. Change champion or change agent are critical ‘nodes’ in which to drive and support change within the organizational network. A lot of change champions are appointed only for one particular initiative. Having a business-focus change champion network means that their capability can be developed over time, and they can support multiple initiatives and not just one. Assessing and supporting change champion capability would also directly translate to better change outcomes.

  • Change leadership and change maturity assessment – refer to the previous section

  • Change capacity assessment.

In an environment where there is significant change happening concurrently, careful planning and sequencing of change in balance with existing capacity are critical. There are several aspects of change capacity that should be called out in the measurement process:

1. Different parts of the business can have different capacity for change. Those parts of the business with better change capability, and perhaps with better change leadership, are often able to receive and digest more changes than other businesses that do not possess the same level of capability.

2. Some businesses are much more time-sensitive and therefore their change capacity needs to be measured with more granularity. For example, call centre staff capacity is often measured in terms of minutes. Therefore, to effectively plan for their change capacity, the impacts of change needs to be quantified and articulated in a precise, time-bound context so that effective resourcing can be planned in advance.

3. The change tolerance or change saturation level for business needs careful measurement in combination with operational feedback to determine. For example, it could be that last month a part of the business experienced significant change impact across several initiatives happening at the same time. The operational indicators were that there was some impact on customer satisfaction, productivity, and there were negative sentiments reported by staff that there was too much change to handle. This could mean that the change tolerance level may have been exceeded. With the right measurement of change impact levels for that part of the business, next time this level of change is seen, previous lessons may be utilized to plan for this volume of change. Utilise measurement and data visualization tools such as the Change Compass to track change capacity.

AI-driven systems such as Change Compass can now detect change saturation hotspots across teams or departments by analysing workload data in real time. These systems also provide actionable recommendations on how to sequence or prioritise initiatives to minimise disruption while maximising performance outcomes.

Enterprise level change measures

At an enterprise level, many of the business unit level measures are still applicable. However, the focus is comparing across different business units to sense-make what each part of the business is going through and if the overall picture is aligned with the intentions and the strategic direction of the organization. For example, typical questions include:

  • Is it surprising that one part of the business is undergoing significant change whilst another is not?

  • Is there a reason that one business unit is focused on a few very large changes whilst for other business units there is a larger set of changes each with smaller impacts?

  • Is the overall pace of change optimum according to strategic intent? Does it need to speed up or slow down?

  • What is the process to govern, report and make decisions on enterprise level change, prioritization, sequencing and benefit realization?

  • Is there one business unit that is able to manage change more effectively, faster with greater outcomes? How can other business units leverage any internal best practices?

As mentioned in the Change Management Measures diagram, some enterprise level change measures include:

  • Change capacity assessment – Does one business unit’s change capacity limits mean that we are not able to execute on a critical strategy within the allocated time? How do we create more capacity?   Ways in which to create more capacity could include more resources such as staff, or initiative funding, more time is given, or more talent to lead initiatives

  • Change maturity assessment – At an enterprise level, the concern is with the overall change maturity of the organization. How do we implement enterprise level interventions to build change maturity through programs, networks, and exchanges, such as:

    • Enterprise change capability programs

    • Enterprise change analytics and measurement tools

    • Enterprise change methodology

    • Enterprise network of change champions

  • Strategy impact map – Change management need not be focused only on project execution or business unit capability. It can also demonstrate value at an enterprise level by focusing on strategy execution (which by definition is change). The way in which different strategies exert impact on various business units may be visualized to help stakeholder understand which initiatives within which strategic intent impact which business units.  To illustrate this please refer to the below diagram which is an example of a strategy impact map. In this diagram, each of the organisation’s strategy is displayed with different initiatives branching out of each strategy. The width of each initiative correlates with the level of impact that the initiative has on the business over a pre-determined period of time. Therefore, the width of each strategy also indicates the overall relative impact on the business.

Example: Change management dashboard from The Change Compass

 

Enterprise change management dashboard

 

This data visualization artifact can be valuable for business leaders and strategic planning functions as it depicts visually how the implementation of various strategies is impacting business units.   This helps planners to better understand strategy implementation impacts, potential risks and opportunities, and balancing change pace with strategy goals at various points in time.

  • Predictive indicators on business performance – We started this article talking about how data is all around us and we also need to better manage change using data. With quantitative data on change impact, it is possible to ascertain any correlations with operational business indicators such as customer satisfaction, service availability, etc. For those business indicators where there is a significant correlation, it is possible to hence use predictive reporting to forecast performance indicator trends, given planned change impacts.

In the below graph you can see an example of this whereby using historical data it is possible to establish correlations and therefore forecast future impact on business indicators. This example is focused on the customer contact centre (CCC) and key business indicator of average handling time (AHT) is utilized as an illustration.

This type of predictive performance forecasting is extremely valuable for organisations undergoing significant change and would like to understand how change may impact their business performance. By demonstrating the impact on business indicators, this puts the importance of managing change at the front and centre of the decision-making table. At The Change Compass, we are developing this type of measurement and reporting function. This is the frontier for change management – to be established as a key business-driving function (versus a standard back-office function).

With AI-powered platforms, stakeholders can now ask natural language questions like ‘What is the current adoption rate of Initiative X?’ or ‘Which teams are at risk of exceeding their capacity?’ Platforms such as Change Compass provide instant answers backed by real-time data analysis, saving time and enhancing decision-making accuracy.

Example: Using natural language query with The Change Compass

Change can be measured and this article has outlined various operational and strategic ways in which change measurement can demonstrate significant value. Most corporate functions cannot exist without data and analytics. For example, Human Resources relies on people and pay data. Marketing cannot function without measurement of channel and campaign effectiveness. For Information Technology, pretty much everything is measured from system usage, to cost, to efficiency. It is time we start utilizing data to better visualize change to better plan and make business decisions.

 

Have a chat with us if you are looking for ways to streamline how you capture, visualise data for decisions, and leverage AI to easily generate insights.  This includes the ability to easily do forecasting, ask data questions using natural language and get instant answers.

 

And If you’re ready to start implementing your change metrics check out the Part 2 of The Ultimate Guide to Measuring Change.

 

 

References:

Miller, David (2011) Successful Change. How to implement change through people. Changefirst Ltd.

Pagon & Banutal (2008) Leadership Competencies for Successful Change Management. Study Report. University of Maribor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do Agile Teams Really Need Change Managers?

Do Agile Teams Really Need Change Managers?

by | Agile

The role of change managers has been left out of the various agile methodologies.  This is even though most fully acknowledge the importance of change management in the success of initiatives. Does this mean that the agile teams should and can take on the role of change managers?  While most of you reading this article may have change practitioners in the organisations, there are plenty of organisations that run agile teams without change managers in the team.

Is it that in agile environments, change management responsibilities are distributed across team members rather than centralised in a single role?  After all the agile team is self-organising and has shared accountability?

For organisations that do not have change managers in agile teams, they are still able to deliver valuable and continuous changes.  The difference is in how effective the agile team is in delivering a solution where:

  • A range of stakeholders are continuously engaged effectively and therefore have high levels of readiness
  • Stakeholders’ readiness for the pace and design of agile is taken into account and various education/engagement sessions are designed as required
  • They’re able to identify the various behavioural changes required in fully adopting the change
  • Stakeholders continuously track and reinforce adoption
  • The team is aware of the change landscape of impacted stakeholders and can work with them respectively to design and deliver in a way that maximises adoption in a targeted way

It is quite difficult for a small agile team to have all these skillsets.  You can equally place the same argument for Business Analysts.  Even if the team does not have this role, they could equally undertake a lot of the tasks that a Business Analyst would typically undertake in an agile project, however, maybe not at the same level of professionalism and rigor.

In a small agile team of cross-functional specialists, by design each member is a specialist in his/her functional domain, whether it is testing, software development, operations, etc.  It would be rare for a domain specialist to have such a breadth of skillsets to include a range of change management skills.  Of course, this is not impossible, but difficult for a team to possess.

An agile team is by design focused on delivering.  By design, the agile team is laser-focused on its iteration work and delivering to the schedule at the right quality.  It does not have a lot of capacity to devote itself to working with a wide range of stakeholders as a result.  The change manager, on the other hand, is by design focused on the world of the stakeholders as well as what the agile team is delivering and designing a series of steps for the changes to take place or a people and organisational perspective.

Moreover, beyond project change management skills, organisations that have a myriad of self-organising agile teams require greater air-traffic control at a portfolio and enterprise level.  Whilst this may be fulfilled from a portfolio management perspective, attention should also be paid to change portfolio management.  Within a fast-paced change environment, the capacity stakeholders across the organisation have for the changes, and the overall prioritisation and sequencing for these changes are paramount.

Without this, changes may fall off the radar, superseded by other competing changes delivered by other agile teams.  Alternatively, change saturation fatigue may be a result.  In fact, there is increasing evidence that this is prevalent across organisations.  Stakeholders’ capacity for change is limited and must be managed effectively to ensure the right changes are adopted.

If change management so critical to agile changes let’s delve into the essential role that change managers play within agile teams, breaking down their contributions across the four typical phases of an agile initiative: Define, Build, Test, and Deploy.

Define Phase

During the Define phase, agile teams lay the groundwork for the project by identifying objectives, scope, and initial requirements. For change managers, this phase is critical for assessing the scope and complexity of the change and determining the necessary resources and support structures.

Key Activities for Change Managers in the Define Phase:

1. Assessing Change Size and Complexity: Change managers evaluate the magnitude of the change and its potential impact on various parts of the organization. This assessment helps in tailoring change management strategies to address specific needs.

2. Resource Planning: Identifying the required business and change support resources is essential. This includes assembling a team of change champions, communication specialists, and trainers who will help facilitate the change.

3. Strategic Planning: Developing a comprehensive plan that outlines key activities and tactics to engage stakeholders and drive successful change. This plan acts as a roadmap for the entire change management process.

Build Phase

In the Build phase, agile teams start developing the solution. Change managers intensify their efforts to understand the potential impacts of the change and begin engaging stakeholders.

Key Activities for Change Managers in the Build Phase:

1. Detailed Stakeholder Assessments: Conducting thorough assessments to identify how different stakeholders will be affected by the change. Understanding these impacts is crucial for tailoring communication and training efforts.

2. Initiating Stakeholder Engagement: Early engagement with stakeholders to communicate the vision, goals, and expected outcomes of the change. This engagement helps in building awareness and buy-in from the outset.

3. Scenario Planning: Since the exact nature of the change may not be fully defined, change managers work with various scenarios to anticipate potential challenges and opportunities. This flexibility allows for adaptive communication and engagement strategies.

Test Phase

The Test phase is where agile teams validate the solution through testing and feedback. For change managers, this phase is pivotal for ensuring stakeholders are prepared for the upcoming changes.

Key Activities for Change Managers in the Test Phase:

1. Collaborating on Testing Processes: Working closely with agile teams to determine how stakeholders can be involved in testing. This may include business testers, change champions, or end-users who provide valuable feedback.

2. Designing Communication Content and Learning Interventions: Developing and rolling out communication materials and training programs to prepare stakeholders for the change. These interventions are tailored based on feedback from testing.

3. Engaging Stakeholders Through Various Channels: Utilizing demos, team briefings, and other engagement channels to keep stakeholders informed and involved throughout the testing process.

Deploy Phase

The Deploy phase marks the transition of the solution into the live environment. Change managers play a crucial role in ensuring a smooth transition and full adoption of the change.

Key Activities for Change Managers in the Deploy Phase:

1. Ensuring Readiness: Before deployment, change managers gather evidence that stakeholders are ready for the change. This involves assessing training completion, communication effectiveness, and overall preparedness.

2. Executing Engagement Strategies: During deployment, change managers leverage various engagement channels to support the transition. This includes continued communication, support hotlines, and face-to-face interactions to address any concerns.

3. Monitoring and Feedback: Establishing performance metrics to monitor the adoption and effectiveness of the change. Feedback is collected and analyzed to make necessary adjustments and integrate the change into business-as-usual operations.

Key Differences in Change Management for Agile Teams

While the core principles of change management remain consistent, their application within agile teams introduces unique challenges and opportunities. Here are some key differences:

Proactive Integration in Cross-Functional Teams

Change managers actively contribute to the progress of agile teams by embedding themselves within the cross-functional team structure. This close collaboration ensures that change management activities are aligned with the development process, allowing for more effective and timely interventions.

Flexibility and Adaptation

In agile environments, the content and nature of changes may evolve throughout the project lifecycle. Change managers must remain flexible, working with scenarios and adaptable communication strategies to respond to shifting requirements and stakeholder needs.

Continuous Feedback and Engagement

Ongoing stakeholder engagement and continuous feedback are cornerstones of effective change management in agile teams. Regular check-ins, feedback loops, and open communication channels help to identify and address concerns early, ensuring smoother transitions and higher adoption rates.

Iterative Planning and Adjustment

The iterative nature of agile projects necessitates continuous review and adjustment of change management plans. Change managers must be prepared to tweak strategies, update communication materials, and refine training programs based on real-time feedback and evolving project dynamics.

Practical Tips for Change Managers in Agile Teams

1. Embed Yourself in the Team: Become an integral part of the agile team to gain a deeper understanding of the project dynamics and build strong relationships with team members.

2. Embrace Flexibility: Be prepared to pivot and adapt your change management strategies as the project evolves. Flexibility is key to staying relevant and effective. Come up with scenarios such as communication materials and engagement tactics as needed.

3. Drive Proactive Open Communication: Create an environment where stakeholders feel comfortable sharing feedback and concerns. This openness will help you address issues promptly and maintain trust.  Note that stakeholders may need learning interventions to truly understand and adjust to agile ways of working.

4. Leverage Data and Metrics: Use data and performance metrics to monitor the effectiveness of your change management efforts.  Data does not just apply to the rest of the agile team.  Change management data is no less valuable. This will help you make informed decisions and demonstrate the value of your work. To read more about how to measure change check out our practical guide here.

5. Continuous Stakeholder Engagement: Engage with stakeholders early and often. Building strong relationships and maintaining regular communication will increase the likelihood of successful change adoption.

6. Understand the Change Landscape: Since the change manager’s role is to adopt a people lens, it is critical to see from the impacted stakeholder’s perspective the range of changes they are or will be going through.  Change that is designed in a vacuum will not be successful.

Change managers play a pivotal role in the success of agile teams, ensuring that changes are effectively adopted and integrated into the organization. By understanding the unique dynamics of agile projects and adopting flexible, proactive, and iterative approaches, change managers can significantly enhance the readiness and adoption of changes. Their efforts not only support the agile team but also drive the overall success of the organization in navigating an increasingly intense landscape of changes.

To read more about managing agile change, check out our suite of articles here.

Ready to start trying different agile change tactics? Check out our agile change playbooks here.