Managing multiple change initiatives is not a new concept nor is it new to organizations. What is perhaps ‘newer’ is how change practitioners are using data to manage multiple changes. Change practitioners that manage a portfolio of initiatives used to focus on building capability in various arenas from employee capability, leadership capability, through to the effectiveness of engagement and learning channels. However, using business and change management data to help companies is just as critical.
In this article, we will explore the top five challenges associated with the current approaches to managing multiple change initiatives. We explore these common approaches and critique key challenges, along with alternatives.
1) Using Change Heatmap to Classify Departments Impacted
Change heatmaps have become a popular tool for classifying departments based on the impact of a change initiative. However, two key issues often arise with this approach: the oversimplification of the traffic light classification system and the lack of granularity at the department level.
One of the most common ways to visually depict the impact of multiple changes is to use the heatmap. This is normally using a 3-point rating system (high, medium, low) to determine the level of impact across the various departments across the organisation. Whilst the rating process is an easy exercise, there are some very serious challenges:
Even for the 3 level rating system the change practitioner may be challenged with how this rating is determined and what it is based on. Not every team within the same department may be equally impacted
There may be different impacts for different roles within the same team and department
The impact may be different depending on whether the focus is on employees, customers, process, system or partner
Typically most use a monthly rating scale. However, for busy organisations with lots of changes, the change volume may go up and down within the same month. With one rating it oversimplifies what actually happens throughout the month
With only 3 levels of ratings, a lot of departments end up having the same rating level for months, meaning there is not much they can do with this data.
In Summary, the summarised monthly rating for one department indicates medium-level change. But at what time of the month, for what role, for what team, and for what type of impact?
The below is an example of a change heatmap from the University of California, Berkeley.
a. Traffic Light Classification Too Simplistic:
The traditional red, yellow, and green traffic light system used in change heatmaps is a simple way to communicate the status of a department’s readiness for change. However, this simplicity can be misleading. Red may indicate a problem, but it does not provide insights into the nature or severity of the issue. Likewise, green may suggest readiness, but it might hide underlying complexities or dependencies.
Even for the 3 level rating system the change practitioner may be challenged with how this rating is determined and what fact it is based on. Also, the impact may be different depending on whether the focus is on employees, customers, process, system or partner. Typically most use a monthly rating scale. However, for busy organisations with lots of changes, the change volume may go up and down within the same month. With one rating it oversimplifies what actually happens throughout the month. Even if the singular departmental rating is split into rating by initiative, this does not provide an aggregate department-level rating that is aggregated based on logic.
To overcome this challenge, organizations need a more nuanced classification system that takes into account the specific issues within each category. This could involve incorporating additional colours or using a numerical scale to better represent the diversity and complexity of challenges within each department.
b. Department Level Not Granular Enough:
While change heatmaps provide a high-level overview, they often lack the granularity required to understand the specific challenges within each department. Different teams within a department may be impacted differently, and a broad classification may not capture these variations.
To address this issue, organizations should consider adopting a more detailed classification system that breaks down each department into its constituent parts. This granular approach allows for a more targeted and effective change management strategy, addressing specific issues at the team and role levels.
In Summary, the singular monthly rating for one department indicates medium-level change. But at what time of the month, for what role, for what team, and for what type of impact?
2) Using Project Milestone Roadmap to Sequence Impacts
Project milestone roadmaps are commonly used to sequence the impacts of change initiatives. However, this approach faces challenges in terms of the sufficiency of milestones and the difficulty of overlaying multiple capacity considerations.
Below is an example from Praxis Framework.
a. Milestones Are Not Sufficient vs Overall Aggregate Impact Levels:
While project milestones provide a structured timeline for change initiatives, they may not capture the full scope of the impact on the organization. Milestones often focus on project-specific tasks and may overlook broader organizational changes that occur concurrently. For example, adoption may require months and is not a single point-in-time milestone per se.
To overcome this limitation, organizations should supplement milestone roadmaps with an overall aggregate impact assessment. This holistic view ensures that the sequence of milestones aligns with the broader organizational objectives and minimizes conflicts between concurrent initiatives.
b. Difficulty of Overlaying Multiple Capacity Considerations:
Managing multiple change initiatives requires a delicate balance of resources, and overlaying capacity considerations can be challenging. Project milestone roadmaps may not adequately address the interdependencies and resource constraints that arise when multiple initiatives are in progress simultaneously.
To enhance capacity planning, organizations should invest in advanced project management tools that allow for the dynamic adjustment of timelines based on resource availability. This ensures a realistic and achievable sequencing of impacts, taking into account the organization’s overall capacity.
3) Relying Purely on Excel and PowerPoint to Manage Multiple Change Initiatives
While Excel and PowerPoint are ubiquitous tools in the business world, relying solely on them to manage multiple change initiatives presents challenges related to the agile nature of changes and the difficulty of having interactive data-based conversations. This is especially the case that most change initiatives are digital changes, and yet they are been managed using non-digital means? How can change practitioners ‘be the change’ when they are using dated ways of driving digital change?
a. Agile Nature of Changes Means Ongoing Updates Are Required:
Change initiatives are inherently dynamic, and their requirements can evolve rapidly. Excel and PowerPoint, while useful for static reporting, lack the real-time collaborative capabilities needed to accommodate the agile nature of changes.
To address this challenge, organizations should consider adopting change management and collaboration tools that enable real-time updates and collaboration. Cloud-based platforms provide the flexibility to make ongoing adjustments, ensuring that stakeholders are always working with the latest information.
b. Difficulty of Having Interactive Data-Based Conversations and Federated Model of Change Data:
Excel and PowerPoint may struggle to facilitate interactive discussions around change data. As organizations increasingly operate in a federated model, with dispersed teams working on different aspects of change initiatives, a more collaborative and integrated approach is essential.
Implementing dedicated change management platforms that support interactive data-based discussions can enhance collaboration and provide a centralized repository for change-related information. This ensures that all stakeholders have access to the latest data, fostering a more transparent and collaborative change management process.
4) Preparing Business Operations Readiness for the Amount of Change
Preparing business operations for a significant amount of change requires a strategic approach that incorporates capacity and time considerations while maintaining granularity in data.
a. Using Business Operations Speak: Capacity, resources, time.
Business operations readiness is often discussed in terms of capacity and time. However, the challenge lies in translating these concepts into actionable plans. Capacity planning involves understanding the organization’s ability to absorb change without compromising existing operations, while time considerations are crucial for ensuring a smooth transition without disruptions.
Change practitioners need to distill the ‘ask of the business’ in business speak. Business stakeholders may not be interested in the various classifications of change or the varying degrees of cultural changes involved. What they are interested in is what you want from my team, how much time you need them to dedicate, and for what team members, so that they can plan accordingly.
b. Granularity of Data:
The granularity of data is essential for effective business operations readiness. Generic metrics may not capture the specific needs and challenges of individual departments or teams, leading to oversights that can impact the success of change initiatives.
Implementing a comprehensive data collection and analysis strategy that considers the unique requirements of each business unit ensures a more accurate understanding of operational readiness. This granularity allows organizations to tailor change management strategies to specific needs, enhancing the likelihood of successful implementation.
5) Getting Executive Engagement and Decision Making
Ensuring executive engagement and decision-making is critical for the success of change initiatives. However, achieving this engagement poses its own set of challenges.
To overcome this challenge, organizations should:
Establish Clear Governance and Engagement Channels:
Ensure that there is in place clear governance bodies making decisions on the overall control of initiatives across the organisation. Communication channels between change management teams and executives should also be well-defined and effective. Regular updates and transparent reporting on the progress and challenges of change initiatives build trust and encourage executive engagement.
Align Change Initiatives with Strategic Objectives:
Demonstrate the alignment of change initiatives with the organization’s strategic objectives. Executives are more likely to engage when they see how a particular change contributes to the overall success and growth of the company.
Provide Decision-Making Frameworks:
Equip executives with decision-making frameworks that guide them through the complexities of change initiatives. Clearly defined criteria for evaluating the success of a change, along with potential risks and mitigation strategies, empower executives to make informed decisions.
Highlight the Business Impact:
Clearly articulate the business impact of change initiatives. Executives are more likely to engage when they understand the tangible benefits and potential risks associated with a particular change. Use data and analytics to support the business case for change.
Offer Ongoing Support and Education:
Ensure that executives have the necessary support and training to navigate the complexities of change management. This includes providing relevant information, resources, and expertise to help them make informed decisions and actively participate in the change process. Creating ‘bite-sized’ and summarised insights is key for executives.
Effectively managing multiple change initiatives is a complex task that requires a holistic and adaptive approach. By addressing the challenges associated with classification, sequencing, tool reliance, business operations readiness, and executive engagement, organizations can enhance their change management strategies and increase the likelihood of successful outcomes. Embracing innovative tools, fostering collaboration, and maintaining a strategic focus on organizational goals are key elements in overcoming these challenges and navigating the ever-evolving landscape of change.
In this article, we’ve stressed the importance of data. You may wonder about the amount of time and effort required to establish all the various points mentioned in the article and if this is even doable. Well, using Excel and other static non-digital ways of managing change data will mean a significant volume of work, and even then it may not provide a clear picture that gives you the various cuts of data required to drive meaningful conversations. Resort to automation provided by change management software such as The Change Compass to assist in data capture, data analysis, and dashboard generation.
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 structure or organizational design that best facilitates successful enterprise change management. There are plenty of different ways to structure change management practices. Like any type of organisational 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 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. 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.
In this Change Practitioner Q&A series, we talk to change managers to ask them how they approach their work. This time we are talking to Annah Kaspar.
Change Compass: Describe yourself in 3 sentences
Annah: I’m curious and a little irreverent because I want to know everything (except, controversially, about football). I love to hear people’s stories and tend to empathise deeply. Happiness is going to places I’ve never been, and hanging out with kind and interesting people.
Change Compass: What has been the most challenging situation for you as a change practitioner? Tell us what happened and how you fared through it.
Annah: It was not due to a type of change or a stakeholder group. It was working with a Program Manager who believed change management was an independent addendum of sorts, separate from the ‘main work’ of technology and process. They didn’t see how project stream interdependencies have a direct correlation to the quality of change outcomes, or that the best change outcomes occur when all project team members collaborate. This played out dreadfully when the PM refused to prioritise a gap analysis, despite this being a dependency for identifying changes and impacts.
The PM was unfamiliar with the flow-on effects. Unclear changes and impacts create ineffective change strategies, poor forecasting of time/effort/budget, ineffective stakeholder engagement and misaligned key messages. This creates low confidence in project solutions and poor adoption and change experience.
How did I fare? Suffice it to say it wasn’t fun for me or the stakeholders, and by that time the root cause (no gap analysis) was an abstract concept. I believe delivery alignment within a project team is one key indicator for delivery effectiveness across an organisation. When there are transparent and integrated project delivery plans and open dialogue about how all project team members play a valued role, then I know we can deliver superb change outcomes.
Change Compass: What are the most useful things to focus on when you first start on a project, and why.
Annah: I make a beeline for the project Business Case, or if there isn’t one, I work with others to get clear on the project drivers, especially the benefits. This is the ultimate ‘why’. If there are no connections between the project’s Business Case and the organisation’s strategy then I look to create these, otherwise the project is in trouble before it has even started.
All project outcomes, scope and solutions flow from the case for change. The next most important is a High Level stakeholder scan and a High Level impact scan. This requires data, data, data! The more the better, as it increases the odds of making better judgments. So even though it’s early days, it’s never too soon to capture data, and for that, you need the whole project team onboard with the critical role of collecting and validating it so you can optimise the delivery approach.
Change Compass: As change practitioners we don’t often get to stick around to see the fruits of our labour, but from your experience what are the top factors in driving full change adoption?
Annah: I was once on the receiving side of change, so I have strong views about this! If these four things are covered, then you’ve achieved sustainability:
Active & visible leaders who advocate for the changes and put their reputation on the line to support success,
A project team who co-creates integrated delivery strategies with impacted people
Direct feedback loops for impacted people. These need in-built response mechanisms and complete psychological safety. No feedback should ever be punished or dismissed
Post-project monitoring of key performance indicators (team and individual) with corresponding rewards to reinforce desired results and support where required to uplift results
Change Compass: You’re known to remain calm when there is a lot of stress and project drama around. What is your advice for others?
Annah: My tough but fair mentor once advised me to think up worst-case scenarios to prepare for challenges. It seemed counter-intuitive and overly negative at first, and would stress me out more! But over time, I saw that I too fall into the category of a perfectly nice and reasonable person who is overwhelmed by fear.
This mostly leads to unhelpful perspectives (cognitive distortions or ‘thinking traps’), unhelpful behaviours (character assassination, shutting down, unnecessary displays of overt authority etc) and ultimately a toxic workplace culture. So in difficult situations, the habit of thinking through not-so-great scenarios, combined with mindfulness, is just a basic form of risk management.
I’m now a huge advocate for speaking up early about risks and applying risk management to all aspects of project delivery. It’s not about ticking boxes. It’s about protecting us by counter-intuitively facing discomfort, creating emotional space for ourselves and others to regulate responses, and removing thinking traps so we can make those trade-off decisions to solve a project drama.
Change Compass: Thanks for sharing your experiences and wisdom with us Annah!
Not too long ago, ‘change’ was predominantly linked to technological breakthroughs and process optimizations. Companies were driven to adopt new technologies and methodologies to stay ahead of the competition and meet the growing demands of consumers. The focus was on efficiency, productivity, and achieving higher profits through innovation. Terms like ‘digital transformation’ and ‘disruption’ frequently dominated boardroom discussions and industry conferences.
It has been that the focus was mostly on technology and process. These were considered the ‘hard’ levers that can be pulled to gain significant business improvements. Companies have been spending big on digitizing their business to save costs and investing in streamlining processes as well.
However, the narrative has shifted.
While technology continues to advance at an unprecedented pace, ‘change’ has taken on a more profound and holistic meaning. Today, companies and people, in general, are recognizing that the ability to adapt, evolve, and respond to the world’s myriad challenges is the true essence of progress.
One reason ‘change’ has become a prevailing buzzword is its resonance with a broader audience. Unlike technical jargon, it connects with people on a more personal level, emphasizing that change is not just about adopting new tools and strategies, but about embracing growth and personal development. It speaks to the capacity of individuals to navigate uncertainties, adjust their mindset, and embrace continuous learning.
Moreover, an increasing percentage of companies are aware that their success hinges on the collective ability of their employees to adapt and remain agile. Leaders now recognize that fostering a culture of change and learning is crucial for attracting and retaining talent, boosting employee morale, and nurturing innovation.
Looking around us, the word ‘change’ is everywhere. Not only are people a lot more comfortable talking about change, but there is also a general acknowledgment of change as an overt occurrence.
Advertising and Slogans: Embracing the Spirit of Change
Companies are also quick to adopt the word ‘change’ in their jargon. Here are some examples.
Cisco “Changing the Way We Work, Live, Play, and Learn”
Cisco, a multinational technology company, explicitly uses the word ‘change’ in its advertising and philosophy. The slogan “Changing the Way We Work, Live, Play, and Learn” highlights Cisco’s focus on transforming various aspects of modern life through their technological solutions.
2. Accenture – “Let there be change”
Accenture, a global consulting and professional services firm, uses the phrase “Let there be change” in its advertisements and marketing materials. This tagline reflects the company’s focus on driving transformative change for its clients and within the industries it serves.
3. T-Mobile – “Change starts now”
This encapsulates the company’s commitment to driving transformation and initiating positive changes in the telecommunications industry. The slogan suggests a sense of urgency and empowerment, encouraging customers to take action and embrace the benefits of a new era in mobile communication.
4. PwC – “Solving for global change starts with you”
This tagline conveys the idea that PwC believes individuals have the power to drive positive change on a global scale. It encourages people to take action and play an active role in addressing global challenges and making a difference. By emphasizing that “you” are the starting point for solving global change, PwC highlights the importance of individual responsibility, innovation, and collaboration in creating a more sustainable and equitable world.
5. University of Technology Sydney “Think. Change. Do.”
This represents UTS’s commitment to fostering a transformative learning experience that prepares its students to be active contributors to society and catalysts for positive change. However, please note that taglines can be updated or changed over time, so it’s a good idea to verify the most current information from UTS’s official sources.
The prevalence of ‘change’ in advertising and slogans reflects companies’ desire to connect with their audiences on a deeper level. By evoking the spirit of change, these companies emphasize their commitment to innovation, customer-centricity, and positive societal impact. They appeal to consumers who seek purpose-driven brands and are eager to embrace progress and sustainability.
Change as a Catalyst for Resilience
In an ever-changing world, adaptability is synonymous with resilience. Companies that can quickly adjust to market shifts, economic downturns, and unforeseen challenges are more likely to thrive. ‘Change’ has thus become the rallying cry for building organizations that are not only successful but also capable of weathering storms and bouncing back from setbacks.
What this means for change practitioners
Change practitioners are in an excellent position to help organisations to shift their change capability and deliver on business improvement objectives. Change is increasingly acknowledged across organisations as a critical competency. The focus on change is there and change practitioners should use this to spearhead the momentum.
What next?
To take things to the next level, change practitioners must complement the upscaling of digitization and AI in organisations by augmenting the same in their work. This means incorporating more machine learning and AI, more digitization, and greater usage of data.
Change practitioners should ensure data is a core part of their practice and a foundational way of formulating change approaches and recommendations to their business stakeholders. Business leaders will increasingly leverage data across all business facets in business management, enabled by digital solutions. In a similar manner, change practitioners must also leverage digital solutions to automate and increase the effectiveness of change work.
Within an increasingly complex change environment, change practitioners should be well-versed in collecting and analysing data and generating data insights, again leveraging digital solutions. With the promise of AI and machine learning, there is already plenty of current opportunities to improve the effectiveness of change work, today. The uptake of this is up to each change practitioner.
The rise of ‘change’ as a popular buzzword reflects the transformative times we live in. As technology continues to shape the world around us, it is the capability of human beings to adapt and evolve that has taken center stage. From technological advancements to human adaptability, ‘change’ has transcended industries and become a part of our collective consciousness. For change practitioners, this is an opportune time to use this momentum to ramp up their own adoption of the digitization of change work and use this to improve the effectiveness of change.
In today’s fast-paced business landscape, marked by ongoing disruptions like environmental challenges, economic shifts and the rapid advancement of AI tools, organizational agility has become a critical capability for sustained success. As businesses strive to remain competitive and responsive to ever-changing conditions, change practitioners play a pivotal role in designing and incorporating agility into their change planning and implementation efforts.
This article explores the importance of agility in change management, drawing on research from industry experts such as McKinsey, and offers valuable insights for change practitioners to foster agility in their projects while navigating unpredictable business decisions, stakeholders, and environments.
The Significance of Agility in Change Management:
Agility has emerged as a key attribute for organizations seeking to thrive amidst disruption. McKinsey’s research on enterprise agility highlights the positive business impact achieved by companies that effectively embrace agility. These organizations demonstrate higher customer satisfaction, increased revenue growth, and improved employee engagement. By incorporating agility into their change initiatives, organizations can respond swiftly to market changes, capitalize on emerging opportunities, and mitigate risks more effectively.
Specifically, what this means is that imagine you are in a program of 5 projects over 2 years. All projects are working with a range of stakeholders within 2 divisions. There can be significant influence that your program can have on the work practices of these 2 divisions over a 2 year period. Now imagine incorporating agile practices in how you implement change. You now have the ability to really shift the dial for these work functions.
Designing Agile Change Management Strategies:
Change practitioners working on individual projects play a vital role in fostering agility within their organizations. To design and incorporate agility into change planning and implementation, practitioners should consider the following strategies:
Embrace iterative approaches: This may sound like a no-brainer, but definitely start by incorporating agile principles into your project planning and delivery. By breaking down change initiatives into smaller, manageable increments, practitioners can iterate and adjust their strategies based on real-time feedback and evolving stakeholder needs. Not a lot of change practitioners do this well. A lot still follow the standard plan and execute approach without a lot of iteration and pivoting of tactics and approaches.
Foster a culture of experimentation: Encourage stakeholders and team members to experiment with new ideas and solutions. Create a safe environment where failures are seen as learning opportunities, enabling continuous improvement and innovation. You may or may not have the luxury of being a part of a project team that promotes this environment. However, you can proactively set the expectation with your stakeholders and explain why this is valuable to help deliver a better change outcome.
Encourage collaboration and cross-functional teamwork: Establish channels for open communication, collaboration, and knowledge sharing. Cross-functional teams can contribute diverse perspectives and expertise, enabling quicker decision-making and adaptability. This may sound like a generic corporate speak … team work and collaboration. However, you can easily design cross-functional teams, work processes and decision making forums to encourage this. The connection and collaboration across teams helps them to be more agile to understand different business forces and perspectives, avoiding ‘insular thinking’.
Prioritize flexibility and adaptability: Recognize that change plans may need to be adjusted or revised as circumstances evolve. Build flexibility into the change management process, allowing for agility in response to unexpected challenges or opportunities. In every project, there are aspects that are different from other projects, even if you are involving the same stakeholders. Designing chuncked-down, flexible modules of change helps you to be more agile.
Remaining Agile as a Change Practitioner:
Change practitioners themselves must also cultivate agility to navigate the dynamic nature of their projects. Here are some key strategies for remaining agile:
Embrace a growth mindset in your change approach: Adopt a mindset that values learning, adaptability, and continuous improvement. Embrace new change tactics, methodologies, technologies, and tools that enhance your change management capabilities. Try new digital or automation solutions.
Develop strong relationship-building skills: Cultivate effective relationships with stakeholders and maintain open lines of communication. Building trust and rapport enables better collaboration and facilitates agility in responding to shifting stakeholder needs. By doing this, you can have much more influence on your stakeholders.
Stay informed and anticipate change: Continuously monitor industry trends, technological advancements, and organizational dynamics. Anticipate potential disruptions and proactively adjust your change plans to accommodate evolving circumstances. This requires strong business acumen.
Foster personal resilience: Change management can be challenging, particularly when faced with unexpected changes. Develop personal resilience by cultivating emotional intelligence, stress management techniques, and the ability to adapt to new circumstances. To lead and influence your stakeholders you need to be their anchor.
In an era of ongoing disruptions and environmental challenges, agility has emerged as a crucial capability for organizations embarking on change initiatives. Change practitioners play a pivotal role in designing and incorporating agility into their change planning and implementation efforts.
By embracing iterative approaches, fostering a culture of experimentation, encouraging collaboration, and prioritizing flexibility, change practitioners can drive agility within their organizations. Additionally, by developing a growth mindset, nurturing strong relationships, staying informed, and fostering personal resilience, change practitioners can remain agile in the face of evolving business decisions, stakeholders, and environments. Embracing agility in change management is key to successfully navigating the ever-changing landscape of the digital world.
