Exploring Organisational Structures for Optimal Enterprise Change Management
Change is an inherent part of every organization’s journey towards growth and adaptability in an ever-evolving business landscape. In the realm of change management, one critical consideration is the organizational structure or design that best facilitates successful enterprise change management. There are plenty of different ways to structure change management practices. Like any type of organizational structures for organizations overall, there is not one way that is the most effective. It depends on the circumstances of the company in concern.
Centralized Change Management Structure
Centralized change management structures consolidate the authority, decision-making, and oversight of strategic change management initiatives within a single, dedicated team or department. In such a structure, the change management team sometimes reports directly to either Strategy or Office of the CEO. This approach provides the change practice significant influence due to its direct linkage with strategy.
Reporting Lines: HR, IT, Strategy, and More
In addition to the choice between centralized and federated structures, change management specialists (and the senior leaders that they report to) often grapple with determining the optimal reporting lines for their change teams. Several departments within an organization are typically considered for hosting the change management function:
1. Human Resources (HR or People & Culture)
Reporting to HR aligns cultural change management with employee engagement and organisational development, which is essential for enhancing a company’s culture. This can be particularly effective when change initiatives heavily impact the workforce, as HR possesses expertise in people-related matters.
2. Information Technology (IT)
With the increasing digitalization of business processes, reporting to IT can ensure that complex technology-driven changes, including the introduction of new technology and digital transformation, as well as improvements in product offerings, are well led and managed across the enterprise. The remit for change practices reporting to IT can range from including just technology changes, to all strategic and funded initiatives, through to all of change management as a function.
3. Strategy or Transformation Office
Reporting to the strategy or transformation office closely ties change management to the organization’s overarching strategic goals. This alignment ensures that change initiatives are directly linked to long-term vision and objectives.
4. Operations
For a lot of organisations, the Operations function can determine a lot about how the organisation is run. This can include the change management function as well. The advantage of having the change practice reporting to Operation can mean that the operating rhythm of the organisation can be designed with the right change management approaches to support business goals. The way employees are engaged, how they’re involved, and how BAU processes are run, measured, and reported can be designed with change management interventions.
Key benefits of a centralized structure include:
Consistency: Centralized control ensures consistent change management practices across the organization, reducing confusion and increasing effectiveness in terms of setting a common level of practice. Consistency in terms of language and concepts mean that it is easier for the business to adopt change management principles and practices.
Resource Allocation: Easier resource allocation, as the centralized team can prioritize and allocate resources based on organizational priorities. With better economy of scale for a larger centralised team, the change group has the opportunity to resource initiatives using different levels of involvement, from sessional, part-time to full-time.
Alignment: Enhanced alignment with the organization’s strategic objectives, as the change management team directly interfaces with top leadership. This means that effort and focus areas as more likely to be on that which is most strategic and can impact the organisation the most.
Change maturity. The change practice has the opportunity to focus on building organisation-wide change maturity due to its ability to interface and influence across the organisation. While other change management structures may also have the ability to focus on building business change maturity, a centralised function has the advantage of having a greater impact level due to its scale.
In contrast, federated change management structures distribute change management responsibilities throughout various business units or departments. Each business unit maintains its own change management team, and these teams collaborate to execute change initiatives. Typically, these teams report to their respective department heads. This means that there is no formal enterprise change management function.
The advantages of a federated structure include:
Local Expertise: Greater understanding of department-specific needs and challenges, leading to tailored change strategies and therefore better change outcomes. Different business units can have very different cultures and different business needs. Having change professionals who understand the various intricacies of the business unit means that they’re able to design change approaches that will better meet business requirements.
Ownership and relationship: There may be increased ownership and commitment among departmental staff, as the change teams sits in the same business unit and are ‘one of them’ versus someone sent from a centralised team. Others in the business unit may be more conducive to advice and support from a colleague in the same broader business unit. It is also easier to establish a closer working relationship if the change practitioner is always working with the same teams.
Flexibility: Greater adaptability to changes in individual departments, as they can independently address unique issues. Without any direction from a central team, the business-dedicated team can better flex their service offering to meet the business unit’s particular focus areas. Whilst, a central team may de-prioritise departmental-level initiatives to be less critical, for a departmental team it is much easier to flex toward their priorities.
Impact on Business Results
The choice of change management structure and reporting lines can significantly impact an organization’s overall business results. Here’s how different structures can yield varying outcomes:
Centralized Structure Outcomes
Efficiency: Centralized structures can excel in efficiency of delivery due to its scale of economy. Whereas small departmental change teams may structure to flex and resource projects efficiently, larger change practices can avoid this by leveraging its range of practitioners with different levels of skill sets and availability.
Consistency: They ensure a consistent approach to change management, reducing confusion among business stakeholders and employees. The consistency of standards also mean that there is less risk that initiatives may experienced a change intervention that is less effective due to the centralised capability standards reinforced.
Top-Down Control: Change initiatives are closely aligned with strategic objectives set by top leadership. This means that any ‘pet projects’ or less prioritised divisional initiatives may not be as likely to be granted change management support. This does not necessarily mean that those departments won’t focus on those initiatives, it just means that change management resources are more prioritised toward what top leadership deems to be most critical.
Federated Structure Outcomes
Local Engagement: Federated structures promote local ownership and engagement, fostering a sense of responsibility among departmental staff. Department-specific change practitioners will be more familiar with ‘what works’ at the department level. They are better able to leverage the right engagement channels and have the ability to access management and leadership roles at the department to garner support and drive overall initiative focus and success.
Adaptability: They allow for greater adaptability to unique departmental needs, which can be crucial in complex organizations. For example, the types of change management approaches and interventions that work for Sales organisations will be very different compared to that for call centres or processing centres, especially as employees transition into new roles. The ability for the change practitioner to adapt locally, supported by a strong company culture, can make or break an initiative’s success.
Innovation: Different units can experiment with various change approaches, leading to innovative solutions. This can be done without the confines of what is the overarching ‘standards and guidelines’ from the centralised change team.
Choosing the Right Structure
The decision regarding the optimal change management structure should be rooted in the organization’s specific context, culture, and the nature of the changes it is undergoing to establish a new status quo. Experienced change management specialists understand that a “one-size-fits-all” approach does not exist. Instead, they carefully consider the organization’s goals, resources, and capacity for change.
Also, it may not need to be either centralised or federated model. It can be a combination of both. For examples:
A federated model by reporting lines, however with a strong community of practice that is centralised and that promotes sharing of practices, standards, and even resources. This ensures that the overall group is connected to each other and new innovative approaches can be shared and proliferated
A centralised model by reporting lines, however with dedicated business-specific change partners that are focused on particular business units so that they are delivering business-focused change solutions. At the same time, the team still maintains a lot of the advantages of a centralised team.
The organisational structure and reporting lines for a change practice may influence various aspects of its work, however, this may not be the most critical part of how it creates value for the organisation. Other aspects in which a change practice should focus on in its development include:
Resourcing model. How to fund change management resources and the service delivery model to support a range of different projects with different needs for seniority, skill set, and even organisational tenure
Change methodology/framework. Organisations should work on at least a change management framework to set a minimum standard for change delivery. Using a generic off-the-shelf methodology may be OK, however they may not cater for the particular language and business needs of the organisation.
Change capability and leadership. Outside of project change delivery, the team should also work on gradually building change capability within the organisation to enhance the ability to drive and support change. This may not need to be in the form of training, it can also be done through structured development through real change projects.
Change portfolio/Enterprise change management. Beyond individual change delivery, the change team should also focus on how to deliver and land multiple initiatives at the same time. Most organisations need to drive change at a faster speed than previously and there is no luxury to only focus on one change at a time. How the team measures, tracks, and ‘traffic controls’ the multiple initiatives is crucial for its success.
To read more about managing a change portfolio visit our Change Portfolio Management section for a range of articles.
Change management structures and reporting lines are not just administrative choices; they can, in some ways, have a profound impact on an organization’s ability to achieve successful change outcomes. Experienced change management specialists must weigh the benefits and drawbacks of centralized and federated structures and align them with the specific needs of their organization. By doing so, they can maximize their ability to navigate the complexities of change and drive the organization toward a more agile, resilient, and adaptive future.
Exploring Organisational Structures for Optimal Enterprise Change Management
Change is an inherent part of every organization’s journey towards growth and adaptability in an ever-evolving business landscape. In the realm of change management, one critical consideration is the type of organizational change structure or organizational design that best facilitates successful enterprise change management and boosts organizational performance. There are plenty of different ways to structure change management practices. Like any type of organizational structures for organisations overall, there is not one way that is the most effective. It depends on the circumstances of the company in concern.
Understanding Change Management Structures
Centralized Change Management Structure
Centralized change management structures consolidate the authority, decision-making, and oversight of change initiatives within a single, dedicated team or department. In such a new structure, the change management team sometimes reports directly to either Strategy or Office of the CEO. This approach provides the change practice significant influence due to its direct linkage with strategy.
Reporting Lines: HR, IT, Strategy, and More
In addition to the choice between centralized and federated structures, change management specialists (and the senior leaders that they report to) often grapple with determining the optimal reporting lines for their change teams. Several departments within an organization are typically considered for hosting the change management function:
1. Human Resources (HR or People & Culture)
Reporting to HR aligns change management with employee/organisational development and engagement while also ensuring the support employees need throughout the process. This can be particularly effective when change initiatives heavily impact the workforce, as HR possesses expertise in people-related matters.
2. Information Technology (IT)
With the increasing digitalization of business processes, reporting to IT can ensure that complex technology-driven changes are well led and managed across the enterprise. The remit for change practices reporting to IT can range from including just technology changes, to all strategic and funded initiatives, through to all of change management as a function.
3. Strategy or Transformation Office
Reporting to the strategy or transformation office closely ties change management to the organization’s overarching strategic goals. This alignment ensures that change initiatives are directly linked to long-term vision and objectives.
4. Operations
For a lot of organisations, the Operations function can determine a lot about how the organisation is run. This can include the change management function as well. The advantage of having the change practice reporting to Operation can mean that the operating rhythm of the organisation can be designed with the right change management approaches. The way employees are engaged, how they’re involved, and how BAU processes are run, measured, and reported can be designed with change management interventions.
Key benefits of a centralized structure include:
Consistency: Centralized control ensures consistent change management practices across the organization, reducing confusion and increasing effectiveness in terms of setting a common level of practice. Consistency in terms of language and concepts mean that it is easier for the business to adopt change management principles and practices.
Resource Allocation: Easier resource allocation, as the centralized team can prioritize and allocate resources based on organizational priorities. With better economy of scale for a larger centralised team, the change group has the opportunity to resource initiatives using different levels of involvement, from sessional, part-time to full-time.
Alignment: Enhanced alignment with the organization’s strategic objectives, as the change management team directly interfaces with top leadership. This means that effort and focus areas as more likely to be on that which is most strategic and can impact the organisation the most.
Change maturity. The change practice has the opportunity to focus on building organisation-wide change maturity due to its ability to interface and influence across the organisation. While other change management structures may also have the ability to focus on building business change maturity, a centralised function has the advantage of having a greater impact level due to its scale.
In contrast, federated change management structures distribute change management responsibilities throughout various business units or departments. Each business unit maintains its own change management team, and these teams collaborate to execute change initiatives. Typically, these teams report to their respective department heads. This means that there is no formal enterprise change management function.
The advantages of a federated structure include:
Local Expertise: Greater understanding of department-specific needs and challenges, leading to tailored change strategies and therefore better change outcomes. Different business units can have very different cultures and different business needs. Having change professionals who understand the various intricacies of the business unit means that they’re able to design change approaches that will better meet business requirements.
Ownership and relationship: There may be increased ownership and commitment among departmental staff, as the change teams sits in the same business unit and are ‘one of them’ versus someone sent from a centralised team. Others in the business unit may be more conducive to advice and support from a colleague in the same broader business unit. It is also easier to establish a closer working relationship if the change practitioner is always working with the same teams.
Flexibility: Greater adaptability to changes in individual departments, as they can independently address unique issues. Without any direction from a central team, the business-dedicated team can better flex their service offering to meet the business unit’s particular focus areas. Whilst, a central team may de-prioritise departmental-level initiatives to be less critical, for a departmental team it is much easier to flex toward their priorities.
Impact on Business Results
The choice of change management structure and reporting lines can significantly impact an organization’s overall business results. Here’s how different structures can yield varying outcomes:
Centralized Structure Outcomes
Efficiency: Centralized structures can excel in efficiency of delivery due to its scale of economy. Whereas small departmental change teams may structure to flex and resource projects efficiently, larger change practices can avoid this by leveraging its range of practitioners with different levels of skill sets and availability.
Consistency: They ensure a consistent approach to change management, reducing confusion among business stakeholders and employees. The consistency of standards also mean that there is less risk that initiatives may experienced a change intervention that is less effective due to the centralised capability standards reinforced.
Top-Down Control: Change initiatives are closely aligned with strategic objectives set by top leadership. This means that any ‘pet projects’ or less prioritised divisional initiatives may not be as likely to be granted change management support. This does not necessarily mean that those departments won’t focus on those initiatives, it just means that change management resources are more prioritised toward what top leadership deems to be most critical.
Federated Structure Outcomes
Local Engagement: Federated structures promote local ownership and engagement, fostering a sense of responsibility among departmental staff. Department-specific change practitioners will be more familiar with ‘what works’ at the department level. They are better able to leverage the right engagement channels and have the ability to access management and leadership roles at the department to garner support and drive overall initiative focus and success.
Adaptability: They allow for greater adaptability to unique departmental needs, which can be crucial in complex organizations. For example, the types of change management approaches and interventions that work for Sales organisations will be very different compared to that for call centres or processing centres. The ability for the change practitioner to adapt locally can make or break an initiative’s success.
Innovation: Different units can experiment with various change approaches, leading to innovative solutions. This can be done without the confines of what is the overarching ‘standards and guidelines’ from the centralised change team.
Choosing the Right Structure
The decision regarding the optimal change management structure should be rooted in the organization’s specific context, culture, and the nature of the changes it is undergoing. Experienced change management specialists understand that a “one-size-fits-all” approach does not exist. Instead, they carefully consider the organization’s goals, resources, and capacity for change.
Also, it may not need to be either centralised or federated model. It can be a combination of both. For examples:
A federated model by reporting lines, however with a strong community of practice that is centralised and that promotes sharing of practices, standards, and even resources. This ensures that the overall group is connected to each other and new innovative approaches can be shared and proliferated
A centralised model by reporting lines, however with dedicated business-specific change partners that are focused on particular business units so that they are delivering business-focused change solutions. At the same time, the team still maintains a lot of the advantages of a centralised team.
The organisational structure and reporting lines for a change practice may influence various aspects of its work, however, this may not be the most critical part of how it creates value for the organisation. Other aspects in which a change practice should focus on in its development include:
Resourcing model. How to fund change management resources and the service delivery model to support a range of different projects with different needs for seniority, skill set, and even organisational tenure
Change methodology/framework. Organisations should work on at least a change management framework to set a minimum standard for change delivery. Using a generic off-the-shelf methodology may be OK, however they may not cater for the particular language and business needs of the organisation.
Change capability and leadership. Outside of project change delivery, the team should also work on gradually building change capability within the organisation to enhance the ability to drive and support change. This may not need to be in the form of training, it can also be done through structured development through real change projects.
Change portfolio/Enterprise change management. Beyond individual change delivery, the change team should also focus on how to deliver and land multiple initiatives at the same time. Most organisations need to drive change at a faster speed than previously and there is no luxury to only focus on one change at a time. How the team measures, tracks, and ‘traffic controls’ the multiple initiatives is crucial for its success.
To read more about managing a change portfolio visit our Change Portfolio Management section for a range of articles.
Change management structures and reporting lines are not just administrative choices; they can, in some ways, have a profound impact on an organization’s ability to achieve successful change outcomes. Experienced change management specialists must weigh the benefits and drawbacks of centralized and federated structures and align them with the specific needs of their organization. By doing so, they can maximize their ability to navigate the complexities of change and drive the organization toward a more agile, resilient, and adaptive future.
How to Change Behaviour in the Workplace: A Complete Guide
In almost every change initiative there is an element of behaviour change. For some initiatives, the behaviour change in adopting a new habit required is large and complex whilst for others it can be as small as pressing different buttons and using a different user interface. Effective behaviour change, including incorporating new procedures, is one of the most critical outcomes that the change practitioner can hope to achieve. With the achievement of desired behaviours come the ultimate benefit associated with an initiative. On the other hand, not achieving the behaviour change targeted means that the change has not succeeded.
Given the importance of behaviour change in every initiative this article aims to cover key aspects of how a change practitioner should approach and design the behaviour change. Yet, successfully designing and implementing behaviour change is one of the most challenging tasks for the change practitioner. It is common place that many change practitioners do not have the experience to know how to achieve successful behaviour change.
The definition of behaviour change
So what is behaviour change?
Behaviour change “refer(s) to any transformation or modification of human behaviour”.
This seems like a fairly general definition that is all-encompassing and can include anything ranging from behaviour change in a psychological context or in a social or workplace context.
However, a key part of behaviour change is to recognise that behaviour, by definition, must be observable in some Shape or form. A behaviour can be verbal, non-verbal, or physical behaviour. However, a behaviour cannot be ‘perception’ or ‘thinking’ since these cannot be observed nor displayed necessarily.
Another feature of behaviour change is that the behaviour is to be changed from the current state to a future state. The quantum of the change determines the complexity of the change required and the extent to which a series of change interventions is required to achieve the desired future state. This means, if the behaviour change is easy from the impacted person’s perspective, then the change approach can be fairly light and does not need to be complex. However, if the quantum of the change is large, then a heavy design of change interventions is expected to achieve the outcome.
Some examples of behaviour change within a change initiative context includes:
Using a different computer program interface with different layout or keystroke steps in performing tasks
Different process steps required in disclosing financial details in business reporting
Proactive coaching employees through feedback to improve sales effectiveness
Reporting on risk incidents that are not compliant with company standards
Actively establishing rapport with the customer to demonstrate empathy by acknowledging their feelings and demonstrating effective listening
Speak up against bullying behaviours amongst colleagues
The importance of focusing on behaviour change
Inexperienced change practitioners will normally just followed the standard cookie-cutter approach of filling out the various change templates such as stakeholder matrix, change impact assessment, and a change plan. And then proceed to develop a communications plan or a learning plan as a part of experiential learning before executing on implementation.
So what is wrong with this?
As called out previously, in almost every change initiative there is a set of desired behaviours required to achieve the end state of the change initiative. The job of the change practitioner is to figure this out and design a change program around the achievement of these behaviours. Just by filling in templates and carrying out standard change approaches will most likely not achieve the targeted behaviours.
For example, in transitioning users from an old ERP system to a new digital system with a new look and feel, it is critical to identify the core behaviours required in the new state. Is it that in using the new digital system the user has access to a lot more timely data and therefore the behaviour change needs to be around 1) proactively checking for data and derive insights and 2) use these insights and data to make better decisions.
This means that if you were to just focus on communicating the change and train employees on how to use the new digital system, the whole project may not be deemed to be successful. This is because it is simply a project of ‘installation’ of a new system. However, the benefits targeted by the new digital system is about employees gaining more insights through the ability to easily access a range of data previously not available. Employees may know how to use the new system but it does not mean that they will automatically exhibit these desired behaviours.
One of the tricky things about behaviours is the ‘knowing’ vs. ‘doing’ conundrum. Just because someone knows how to do something it does not mean they will necessarily do it. Just because there is a pedestrian path, it does not mean that everyone will always use it. In a similar way, just because someone knows that the company wants him/her to document sales activities, it does not equate that all sales people will document all sales activities. In fact, in practice, we know that spending time on ‘admin’ such as documenting and entering sales activities into a system is often the last thing sales people want to do.
In the next section we will cover how to drive behaviour change.
How to achieve behaviour change
BJ Fogg model
Dr BJ Fogg is a Stanford professor who founded the Behavior Design Lab at Stanford University. BJ Fogg also wrote the New York Times bestseller ‘Tiny Habits’. What I love about this is that the Fogg model is incredibly simple and practical. It is grounded and backed up by significant empirical research and not just an ‘opinion’.
The Fogg model highlights 3 key elements that must converge at the same time for a behaviour to occur.
1. Motivation – Different motivators have different impacts on behaviour
2. Ability – This refers to how easy it is to undertake a behaviour. Some characteristics include time, money, physical effort, brain cycles (or ease of understanding and processing the task at hand), social deviance (the extent to which a behaviour is out of the social norm), and non-routine (behaviour that disrupts an existing routine)
3. Prompt/Trigger – These are reminders of events that prompt a particular behaviour. It could be an alarm, an associated image/event/person/scent, etc that reminds the person of the behaviour.
The power of this model is in its simplicity. You can apply this to any change initiative and the model will guide your thinking on how to design effective behaviour change. When something feels easy to do (low ability), then it will not require a lot of motivation to do it. Alternatively, when something is perceived as very hard to do, then it will require very high motivation to understate the behaviour. The key is to aim above the line. So, either focusing on increasing ability or increasing motivation will result in above the curved line, which means the behaviour taking place.
Example of applying the Fogg model
Case: You are implementing a cost cutting exercise due to the impact of Covid on the organisation. As a result of this exercise, the impacted employees will need to pick up parts of the roles of others who have been let go. The behaviour change required is that impacted employees will need to cover a broader set of tasks and at times have a heavier workload as a result.
Application:
Motivation: The impacted employee’s motivation is currently impacted after seeing their fellow colleagues lose their jobs and hence feeling worried that their jobs may be impacted. This is despite reassurances from senior managers that no more jobs will be cut for the time being. The challenge will be to sufficiently motivate these employees by continuously reassuring them of their job safety and working through the transition of having a broader role responsibility. Appealing to the focus on supporting customers and not letting them down may be a theme to reinforce.
Ability: It is critical to assess to what extent impacted employees are able to carry out new tasks assigned from a skill perspective. Training or coaching may be required. The other area to address is workload concerns. The perception that a heavy workload is required will hinder their likelihood of carrying out the additional responsibilities. Workload prioritisation and protocols are key topics to talk through to reassure employees how workload may eventuate during heavy periods.
Trigger: Different triggers may be designed to remind and reinforce the uptake of new accountabilities. These may include manager 1:1s, team reporting, open visual display of performance indicators, email reminders, colleague reinforcement/coaching, etc.
According to the Fogg model if the new accountabilities are significant it would be best to break these down into smaller behaviour increments vs a ‘big bang’ transition. It could be that there is a gradual transition whereby a period of continuous coaching is required after gradually introducing new sets of tasks for the employee to uptake and practice. After the transition period is completed, the employee then formally uptakes on the full accountabilities.
According to research findings, it is much easier to adopt the new behaviours if the discrete behaviours are broken down to small increment behaviours. Fogg has used lots of different examples of this one of which is doing push-ups. He started by doing 10. Then he would add 1 more every day to the push-up exercise, eventually getting to 100 push-ups. Adding a trigger to the new behaviour is also critical. For example, Fogg gave the example of doing sit-ups first thing in the morning as soon as you get up or doing pushups after going to the toilet. The event of getting up or going to the toilet then becomes a trigger for the new behaviour.
Cognitive Behavioural approaches to behaviour change.
Cognitive behavioural therapy is a widely established clinical approach to changing behaviours in patients suffering from various psychological conditions or disorders. Cognitive approaches are based on the fact that the way one thinks determines one’s reaction and therefore one’s behaviour. For example, self-talk is a mechanism to change one’s opinion or perception. Constantly reinforcing and verbalising positive statements about oneself may improve one’s own perception of oneself. Alternatively, constant negative self-talk leads to negative self-perception.
Behavioural approaches are based on research that started with Pavlov’s research on dogs where he associated bells as a trigger for food. After a period of time, every time the dogs heard the bell they would start salivating, with salivating being the behaviour. This process of associating a trigger with a behavioural reaction is also called ‘conditioning’. The process of conditioning is to ‘re-program’ the subject so that a new behaviour is introduced in reaction to a trigger.
There are many ways in which cognitive behavioural approaches may be applied to changing a person’s behaviour. For example, lets use the previous example of implementing a new system.
Creating or changing impression of the new system
A communications campaign may be devised to create or change the existing impression of the new system. This would be similar to any marketing campaign that associated particular imagery or messages with a feeling or impression. Over a period of repetition, the employees will start to associate positive impressions and key messages with the new system. Any tag-lines that are reinforced by manager briefings or town hall sessions would also act the reinforce the same messages.
As a part of the formal training for the new system, it could be that other than learning the ins and outs of operating the new system, the employee needs to be more proactive in looking at customer information to provide more value-add suggestions to the customer. Practices during the session, along with small nudges and subsequent reinforcements by the team leader or manager, through a corporate social learning platform, would act to build the behaviour change.
The trigger for new behaviours could be any acronyms, diagrams, tag lines, or pictures, and short videos and infographics created as a part of the campaign or training content. It is however important that there is a period of positive reinforcement or else the behaviour may not occur. The reinforcement may take form in terms of manager support, communication messages, prizes, competitions, and reporting on behaviour progress.
This is why post-release embedment is so important as the embedment process focuses on constantly reinforcing the behaviour so that it becomes second nature. Without this, the newly acquired behaviour will not be sustained. This is like exercise. Exercising a few times and your body starting to get the drift of what to do is just the start of the change. Without a period of constant exercising, it will not become a habit.
The other important cognitive behavioural approach to embedding new behaviour is ensuring adequate and effective social support. Some employees may be quite self-sufficient and are able to resolve any system issues themselves. Others may require a lot more hand-holding. This is why there must be change champions in place who can coach and support employees, as highlighted by social learning theory, as an effective way to support the right behaviours and resolve any obstacles in adopting the new system fully.
How to measure behaviours
Measuring behaviours is absolutely critical because without effective measurement it is difficult to ascertain to what extent the desired behaviours have been obtained and sustained. It is the old adage “What gets measured matters”.
So what are some of the ways in which to measure behaviours? These are some common examples.
Manager rating based on observation
Video recording
Phone/call listening
Attendance (e.g. training)
Test
System/digital reporting that tracks behaviour in a system
Employee-wide surveys specifically designed to focus on targeted behaviours
What categories in which to measure behaviours?
There are many considerations or dimensions in measuring behaviours. The following are some of these:
Time: How long would you want to measure the behaviours to ensure that they have fully embedded and incorporated into business-as-usual. Typical practice is several months after the ‘release’. Tracking reinforces behaviours. This means the longer the tracking mechanism continues – the more likelihood the behaviours will last longer
Level of behaviour change: Is the behaviour being measured black and white in its determination? I.e. is it easy to categories if the behaviour has occurred or not? Or are there different levels of behaviour achievement? E.g. If you are measuring if call centre staff has exhibited behaviour is reviewing customer data and offer suggestions, are there different levels of ‘value add’ behaviours based on customer data, in which case there could be a scale to rate this. Alternatively, it could also be a yes/no type of classification
Frequency: How frequent is the behaviour being displayed? Is it that the goal is to promote the frequency of the desired behaviour? Or are there certain limits expected? For example, if we would like call centre staff to offer value add calls with the customer, are there particular ‘ceilings’ or limited after which it may no longer be valuable for the customer?
Situational considerations: Ranking and classifying behaviours should also always consider situational factors. For example, it could be that the customer was not in the right emotional state to receive value-add suggestions and therefore the behaviour would not be appropriate for that situation. It could also be that the call centre consultant has been suffering from sickness or has been struggling with family difficulties and therefore for a period of time was not performing effectively. As a result, previously acquired behaviours could have dropped temporarily
How do we drive full embedment of behaviours?
These are some key call-outs in ensuring that the behaviours you have set out to transition to not only are achieved but are sustained, and to prevent relapse. Pretty much all aspects of change could determine the extent to which behaviours become adopted or not.
1. Executive sponsorship and drive. You will hear a lot of this in literature and articles that with executive sponsorship and drive it is much easier for behaviours to be sustained.
2. Employee community support and reinforcement. This point acts almost as the balancing point of the previous one. With sufficient employee community support and reinforcement, it is possible to drive continual behavioural reinforcement even without strong executive sponsorship.
3. Measurement and reporting. With the right measurement and reporting, employees receive feedback on what their performance has been, and this constant feedback acts as a strong reinforcement feedback loop for managers, training teams, and their direct reports. This is especially the case if everyone can see others’ behavioural performance. It could be by business unit or individual, but ‘naming and shaming’ can work if that is consistent with the organisational cultural values.
4. Early and continuous engagement. This is a change management 101 point. With early and continuous engagement workflow, impacted team members will feel much more engaged with the change. As a result, they will want to exhibit the desired behaviours to make it a success because they feel that they are the ones driving the changes. Alternatively, if the change is perceived as designed and implemented by another party without consultation with the impacted group, there could be resistance or a lack of embedment during the contemplation phase.
5. Culture of continuous improvement. A culture of continuous improvement can also support continual and full embedment of behaviours. If there is a strong culture of analysing the current performance and working on root cause analysis for performance improvement, along with teamwork on appropriate actions to improve performance, then behaviours will be adopted. In this situation, any situational or personal factors or not exhibiting behaviours may be called out and addressed to achieve the targeted outcome.
Complexity of embedding multiple behaviours across multiple initiatives
Most organisations are implementing multiple initiatives at the same time. This is the norm as organisations stay competitive, stay relevant, and in business. When multiple projects are going on all driving seemingly different behaviours.
How do we embed multiple behaviours?
1. Understand the different behaviours across initiatives. Rather than focusing on every single behaviour driven by every initiative, the key is to capture and record the top few behaviours targeted by each initiative. For large organisations with lots of initiatives, this may seem like an impossible feat. It could be organising 1-2 workshops to capture these behaviours. Do note that different initiatives may be at different stages of the product life cycle and therefore it may not be possible to capture all behaviours at a particular point in time. Having a regular change portfolio meeting where this could be discussed and captured iteratively would be ideal.
The Change Compass has just released a feature to aid the collection of core behaviours across initiatives so that these may be analysed, understood, and linked to aid better implementation alignment. You can tag key target behaviours to each initiative or project. For example, customer-centricity or efficiency. Then you can look through those initiatives impacting one part of the business and the core behaviours being driven across multiple initiatives.
2. Analyse and group the captured behaviours. After compiling the behaviours across initiatives the next step is to group and understand them.
Are there behaviours that are part of the same theme? For example, what are initiatives that are promoting a closer focus on the customer by promoting better listening and empathy skills?
Are there any behaviours that are ‘contradictory’ to other behaviours? Here is a real example. For a bank, one initiative was tasked to retire and close off a particular credit card due to a lack of profitability. However, at the same time, the same team was asked to try and sell more of their business unit head to meet their sales target.
3. Examine behaviours that are grouped into the same theme and think of ways to better align and join the dots to improve execution and behaviour embedment. This step is the most crucial step and involves running workshops across initiatives to better align approaches and plan for synergistic implementation of change across initiatives. Key discussion points or opportunities may include:
Aligning key messages and positioning for common behavioural themes. For example, if 2 initiatives are focused on improving customer-centric, how might these better align their communication activities, look and feel of communications collateral, wording, and positioning of behaviours.
Align, cross-leverage and cross-reference learning content. If multiple initiatives are all driving common behaviours, can content be cross-reinforced across multiple initiatives to drive a consistent and aligned user experience? This also ensures that there is no duplication of efforts in covering the same content
Align the sequencing and implementation of change activities. If 2 initiatives are both driving similar behaviours, can the various change activities be better sequenced and aligned to drive a better outcome than 2 separate siloed approaches? For example, can the executive sponsor speak to both initiatives in their town hall address, and can change champions be cross-leveraged to talk about both initiatives to help impacted teams join the dots around the common behaviours?
Successful and fully embedded behavioural change is the epitome of successful change and transformation initiatives. Achieving this is not always easy but having the right focus and adopting a structured approach to design behaviour change will ensure initiative success. Don’t be afraid of experimenting to test different ways in which to drive behaviour change. Keep iterating with different approaches to drive the full adoption of behaviours, which in turn will then ensure the full achievement of initiative benefits.
Buddhism embraces change as an inherent aspect of life, emphasizing the Pali word for impermanence, anicca. Change is viewed not as a threat, but as an opportunity for growth and enlightenment. By understanding and accepting the transient nature of existence, individuals can cultivate resilience and inner peace, ultimately leading to personal transformation and liberation.
I recently visited my brother and his family in Queensland near the North Eastern tip of Australia. Other than enjoying the nice beaches and tropical surroundings I spend some time with my 2 nephews. One of them is still in secondary school participating in various swimming carnivals over the same weekend. It seemed like yesterday that I had to hold his hand and walk him across the street. And now he is 6 foot three tall and still growing. Like many others undergoing change I reminisced the old days when he was small and cute and cherished the past. Not that the present isn’t great – but a part of us always miss the past and long for some of it to come back.
This made me wonder how generations have undergone change through the ages. Change is a fact of life as we grow and age – life and death. The Kubler-Ross model of the change curve is based on death and grief. This is often utilised to model the experiences that people undergo during change. However, the experience of change is an individual one and one that is dependent on the nature of the change and also how we perceive it. The same change event can be interpreted by one as a positive one and another as a negative one. As a result, for the same change event, for one the Kubler-Ross model of emotional experience can be valid, whilst for another completely the irrelevant.
How do we best deal with the constant changes and the nature of things in our lives? Buddhism, as part of its core Buddhist practice, is steeped in the philosophy that change in life is inevitable, reflecting the teachings of the Buddha as outlined in the sutra. Our thoughts are constantly changing, as are things around us, much like how the monks experience change in their monastic lives. Friends and even family can come and go, so can our belongings, but our attachment to them can lead to suffering. It teaches us that the more we try and hold on to things, the more grief and suffering this will cause us. The more we cling on to the past, the more it will cause us pain. This pain, if not embraced as part of our journey, prevents us from attaining a state of bliss and nirvana that comes from adjusting to the change and the new state of being.
“When we meet real tragedy in life, we can react in two ways–either by losing hope and falling into self-destructive habits, or by using the challenge to find our inner strength.” Dalai Lama.
In Buddhist meditation training, we are taught to be mindful and notice each moment, each sensation, and the dhamma of the environment that we are in. With the ebb and flow of each changing thought or changing moment, we simply notice it, acknowledge it, and apply the same mindfulness to the new state. We notice any feelings we have, acknowledge it as a part of how we react to the situation and move on to continually focus on the new state.
Building change readiness
In the modern organization we are constantly facing a multitude of different changes at the same time. How might we apply the same buddhist philosophy to these changes? We can do this by building awareness within ourselves and our employees that changes are constant, like life itself.
Draw attention to the various changes in an open and matter of fact way.
Build broader consensus of the environment that we are in.
Establish expectation that there will continue to be ongoing changes.
As needed establish routines and operating rhythms to bring the information about the changes to everyone (mindfulness of changes) and acknowledge the environment and challenges that the organization is facing.
Investigate and analyse what channels are required to bring the changes to light so that everyone is well aware and ready for the changes.
“If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.” Dalai Lama.
At the same time we need to highlight and prepare employees for the new changes. And as the changes happen, make these explicit. Acknowledge any reactions to the change, address these head on and reference back to what is happening currently. Show compassion for those impacted by the change by being open and supportive. In corporate lives we often only focus on profit and bottom line. Being profitable and financial successful can create good for the organization and its people. However, we can also do a better job at being compassionate about people’s work lives. We can do this by HOW we implement changes. Are we open about what the change is? Or do we hide behind corporate jargon? Do we continuously engage with impacted parties so that they have an optimal change experience?
To build capability for constant changes, we need to consider how leaders message and story-tell the journey of the changes employees have faced, past, present and what the future holds. Link this to the theme of constant change.
Build employee resilience through mindfulness of change. Just like the theme of life and death, draw out the need for constant evolvement within the organization to stay current and relevant.
——————————-
If you enjoyed this article please share this with your contacts.
One of the most feared aspect of change by organisations is its impact on performance. There is a wide variety of change which can determine the potential for performance dips during the change process. However, there is a significant body of research on the phenomenon of performance dip during system implementation. This refers to a temporary decrease in performance or productivity that often occurs when a new system is introduced or a significant change is made to an existing system. In this article we review key research studies on performance dips during change.
What are some of the research studies on performance dips during system implementation? Here are a few research studies that provide some insight into the degree of performance dips during system implementation:
A study published in the Journal of Computer Information Systems in 2019 found that performance dips during ERP implementation projects can range from 10% to 25% on average, with some organizations experiencing dips as high as 40%.
A study published in the Journal of Information Technology Management in 2011 found that performance dips during enterprise system implementation can range from 5% to 50% on average, depending on the organization and the type of system being implemented.
A study published in the International Journal of Information Management in 2016 found that performance dips during electronic health record (EHR) system implementation can range from 5% to 60% on average, depending on the organization and the level of customization required for the EHR system.
What about for transformation programs? What are some of the findings on how much performance could dip during the transformational change process?
Here are some examples of the percentage of performance dips observed in various transformation programs:
A study by McKinsey & Company found that organizations undergoing digital transformations typically experience a 10% to 15% dip in productivity during the implementation phase.
A research report by the Hackett Group found that companies implementing large-scale enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems experience an average performance dip of 5% to 15% during the implementation phase.
A case study of a large Australian bank’s transformation program found that the organization experienced a 10% to 20% dip in productivity during the implementation phase.
A study of 10 organizations that had implemented new supply chain management systems found that they experienced an average productivity dip of 12% during the implementation phase.
The percentage of performance dips
The percentage of performance dip with transformation programs can vary widely depending on a variety of factors, such as the size and complexity of the transformation, the industry, the specific processes and systems being impacted, and the level of planning and support provided during the implementation.
It’s important to note that these percentages are only rough estimates, and the actual performance dip can vary widely depending on the specific context of the transformation program. Organizations can minimize the impact of performance dip by carefully planning and managing the implementation process, providing appropriate training and support to employees, and monitoring performance closely during and after the implementation.
Why causes the performance dip?
One key factor that contributes to performance dip is the learning curve associated with the new system. Users need time to become familiar with the new software or hardware and may initially struggle to complete tasks at the same speed or with the same level of accuracy as they did with the previous system.
Another factor is the disruption to established workflows and processes that can occur during system implementation. When a new system is introduced, it often requires changes to the way work is done, which can lead to confusion, feelings of loneliness, and delays until everyone adjusts to the new way of doing things.
Research has found that performance dip tends to be most pronounced in the initial stages of system implementation and can last anywhere from a few days to several months, depending on the complexity of the system and the level of support provided to users during the transition.
Overall, it is largely change management factors that can cause performance dips. For example:
Resistance to change. When employees are asked to change the way they work, they may resist the change, leading to a decline in performance. Resistance can be due to various reasons, including fear of the unknown, lack of understanding of the reasons for the change, and concerns about job security.
Implementation issues: When new processes or technologies are not implemented correctly, they may not work as intended, leading to a decline in performance. Implementation issues can be due to various reasons, including inadequate planning, insufficient resources, and unrealistic timelines.
Communication breakdowns: When communication between stakeholders breaks down, it can lead to confusion and misunderstandings, leading to a decline in performance. Communication breakdowns can be due to various reasons, including inadequate planning, insufficient resources, and unrealistic expectations.
Organizational culture: Organizational culture can also contribute to performance dips during transformation programs. When the organizational culture does not support change, employees may be resistant to it, leading to a decline in performance. Organizational culture can be due to various reasons, including leadership style, history, and values.
What about performance dips when there are multiple changes going on?
Research has shown that implementing multiple changes simultaneously can lead to a higher risk of performance dips. Here are some examples of research studies that have explored this issue:
“The Effects of Multiple Change Initiatives on Perceptions of Organizational Change: Implications for Employee Outcomes” by Michael Tushman and Philip Anderson (2004): This study found that implementing multiple change initiatives at the same time can lead to increased uncertainty and confusion among employees, which can lead to a decline in performance.
The Effect of Multiple Change Programs on Employee Well-being and Work Outcomes: A Longitudinal Study” by Michal Biron and Yair Bamberger (2012): This study found that implementing multiple change programs simultaneously can lead to increased stress and burnout among employees, which can negatively impact their performance in a negative workplace culture.
“The Impact of Multiple Change Initiatives on Perceived Organizational Performance” by Matthew Davis and Stephen Taylor (2008): This study found that implementing multiple change initiatives simultaneously can lead to a decline in perceived organizational performance, which can impact employee morale and motivation.
“Managing Multiple Organizational Changes: The Role of Prior Change Implementation and Timing of Change Initiatives” by Sebastian Kunert and Christiane Stenger (2019): This study found that implementing multiple changes simultaneously can lead to a higher risk of performance dips, but that prior experience with change implementation and careful timing of change initiatives can help to mitigate this risk.
Overall, these studies suggest that implementing multiple changes simultaneously can lead to a higher risk of performance dips. However, it is not that organisations should simply avoid implementing simultaneous changes. Morever, implementing simultaneous change is a fact of corporate life and continuous development. No modern organisation can survive by implementing only one singular change at a given time.
How to avoid performance dips across the portfolio of change initiatives
“Managing multiple change initiatives: the role of planning, sequencing, and implementation” by Jelena Spanjol and Susan Ashford (2018): This study found that careful planning and sequencing of change initiatives can help to reduce the negative impact of multiple changes on employee performance. The authors suggest that organizations should prioritize changes based on their strategic importance, and implement changes in a way that minimizes disruption to employees, incorporating AI to streamline processes.
In particular, the following 3 points have been highlighted.
Prioritization: Organizations should prioritize changes based on their strategic importance, and implement changes in a way that minimizes disruption to employees. This can involve aligning changes with the organization’s overall strategy, and ensuring that employees understand how the changes will benefit the organization.
Timing and sequence: The timing and sequence of changes can have a significant impact on employee performance. Organizations should consider the timing of changes relative to other initiatives, as well as the sequence of changes. For example, changes that are more disruptive to employees may be better implemented after other, less disruptive changes.
Coordination: Effective coordination of multiple change initiatives is crucial to minimize the negative impact on employee performance. Organizations should ensure that there is clear communication and coordination between different departments and teams involved in the changes, and that there is adequate support and resources available to employees to help them adapt to the changes.
In fact similar findings have been concluded across various McKinsey studies as well. Having clear prioritisation and sequencing is absolutely integral to deliver significant value to the organisation across the initiative portfolio. 40% more value. That is correct. Organizations that are focused on prioritizing and sequencing across the initiative portfolio can gain 40% more value than those that do not.
If you’re keen on achieving 40% more value across your change portfolio have a chat to us about how The Change Compass digital solution can help you do just this.
How to avoid performance dip during system implementation change initiatives
Here are some research findings from different articles on how to reduce performance dips during system implementation projects:
1. “Reducing Performance Dip During Implementation of Large-Scale Information Systems” by David Straub and James King (1996):
• Encourage and support employee participation in the implementation process.
• Provide adequate training and education on the new system.
• Communicate effectively with employees about the changes and their impact.
• Provide adequate technical support and resources.
• Establish clear and specific goals for the implementation process.
2. “Managing multiple change initiatives: the role of planning, sequencing, and implementation” by Jelena Spanjol and Susan Ashford (2018):
• Develop a comprehensive change management plan that includes communication, training, and support.
• Prioritize and sequence change initiatives to minimize disruption and avoid overload.
• Provide clear and consistent communication about the changes and their impact.
• Involve employees in the design and implementation process.
3. “A multi-level model of employee attitudes toward organizational change” by W. Matthew Bowler et al. (2010):
• Foster a positive attitude toward change by providing clear and consistent communication, support, and training.
• Encourage employee participation and involvement in the change process.
• Provide resources and tools to help employees adapt to the change.
• Monitor and address resistance to change.
• Recognize and reward employee efforts to adapt to the change.
4. “Reducing the Performance Impact of Software Upgrades” by Albert J. Simard and Lionel P. Robert Jr. (2004):
• Develop a comprehensive training program that focuses on the most relevant features of the new system.
• Provide ample opportunities for practice and feedback.
• Establish a clear and specific timeline for the implementation process.
• Communicate effectively with employees about the changes and their impact.
• Provide technical support and resources to address any issues that arise.
In conclusion, research suggests that organizations that use a combination of these change strategies are more likely to avoid performance dips during transformation programs at a portfolio level. By carefully managing and monitoring the portfolio of initiatives, providing appropriate training and support to employees, and continuously improving performance, organizations can ensure a successful transformation that delivers the desired benefits.
In the rapidly evolving landscape of today’s organizations, adaptability and agility have become more than just buzzwords; they are essential for survival and growth. The traditional approach of executing projects on an ad hoc basis is giving way to a strategic imperative—building change management maturity. This shift is not merely a choice but a compelling competitive advantage.
Recent statistics underscore the urgency of this change. According to a survey by Gitnux, more than 80% of businesses face increasing pressure to adapt to market forces, including technological advancements and evolving customer expectations. In this environment, mature organizations can respond swiftly to market dynamics and implement strategic initiatives with unparalleled precision and speed.
Two prominent models have emerged as guiding beacons in this transformative journey: the Change Management Institute (CMI) Change Maturity Model and Prosci’s Change Management Maturity Model. Both models are deeply entrenched in the concept of organizational competency levels, offering a structured framework comprising five progressive maturity levels.
In this article, we will embark on an enlightening journey, exploring the foundations of these two prominent change management maturity models, uncovering their intricacies, and paving the way for a more holistic approach to change management. Additionally, we will delve into the critical role of various organizational functions, shedding light on how they can actively contribute to the organization’s change maturity.
CMI Change Maturity Model
The Change Management Institute (CMI) Change Maturity Model is a comprehensive framework that takes a holistic approach to enhancing an organization’s change management maturity. It’s divided into three core functional domains, each playing a vital role in the overall journey toward maturity: Project Change Management, Business Change Readiness, and Strategic Change Leadership. These domains serve as the foundation for achieving higher levels of maturity within the organization.
Within each of these domains, the CMI model outlines a structured path, consisting of five distinct maturity levels. These levels represent a continuum, starting at Level 1, which serves as the foundational stage, and progressing all the way to Level 5, the zenith of maturity and effectiveness. This multi-tiered approach offers organizations a clear roadmap for growth and development, ensuring that they have the tools and insights necessary to navigate the complexities of change management.
The distinguishing feature of the CMI model is its emphasis on the idea that true change maturity extends beyond the realm of project execution. While executing individual projects is undoubtedly important, the CMI model advocates for a broader perspective. It recognizes that sustainable change maturity relies on the cultivation of readiness for change across the entire organization. This involves preparing teams, leaders, and employees to adapt to and embrace change seamlessly, making it an integral part of the organizational culture.
Furthermore, the CMI model underscores the indispensable role of change leadership and governance in nurturing change maturity. Effective leadership is the driving force behind successful change initiatives, and it’s the cornerstone of achieving higher levels of maturity. Governance structures ensure that change management practices are not just theoretical concepts but are woven into the fabric of how the organization operates on a day-to-day basis. Governance provides the necessary framework for sustaining change maturity in the long run.
Prosci Change Maturity Model
In contrast to the more specific functional domains emphasized by the CMI model, the Prosci Change Maturity Model takes a broader perspective, focusing on the development of overall organizational change management competency. Rather than zeroing in on individual functions, it provides a generic framework that covers key areas integral to building change maturity. These areas include:
Project Execution: The model places a strong emphasis on effective project execution as a cornerstone of change management maturity. It recognizes that the successful implementation of change initiatives hinges on well-executed projects, including detailed planning and efficient execution.
Business Capability and Readiness: Understanding the readiness and capability of the organization is another critical component. The Prosci model highlights the significance of assessing an organization’s readiness to undergo change, including the ability to adapt to new strategies, technologies, and processes.
Senior Change Leadership: Leadership is vital in steering the organization toward maturity. The model underlines the importance of senior change leadership, emphasizing that leaders play a pivotal role in setting the tone for change, championing initiatives, and fostering a culture of adaptability.
Formalized Practices and Organizational Awareness
One of the key drivers for elevating maturity, according to the Prosci model, is the establishment of formalized change management practices. This includes developing and implementing standardized methodologies to ensure consistent change management approaches across the organization. Furthermore, the model advocates for creating widespread organizational awareness about the significance of change management and its role in achieving successful outcomes.
The Role of Change Management Training
A cornerstone of the Prosci model’s approach to maturity is the incorporation of comprehensive change management training. This training equips individuals within the organization with the knowledge and skills needed to effectively manage change initiatives. It emphasizes the importance of investing in the development of internal change management expertise.
While both the CMI and Prosci models address the critical areas of project, business, and change leadership in driving change maturity, they diverge in their approaches. The CMI model offers a broader perspective, highlighting the importance of agility and continuous improvement as essential components of maturity. It places a strong emphasis on crafting the right cadence, establishing efficient business processes, and implementing robust governance practices. In contrast, the Prosci model, while equally comprehensive, provides less specific guidance on embedding change practices within the organization’s fabric and processes. Instead, it places a strong focus on the effective implementation of change initiatives.
What’s Missing in Current Change Maturity Models?
The lacuna in existing change maturity models becomes evident when we consider the need to genuinely embed change management principles and practices within an organization’s DNA. True integration transcends the mere execution of initiatives and building change capabilities among leaders and employees. It calls for collaboration across multifarious functions, including Risk Management, Marketing, Strategy, and Human Resources, to engrain change principles and practices. The focus is on holistic change capability, encompassing different functional areas. This approach fosters a culture where practices, capabilities, and supporting structures converge to enable continuous change.
In the following sections, we’ll explore examples of how change management principles and practices can be applied across seven key functions: Risk Management, Strategy and Planning, Operations, Project Management, Human Resources, Technology, and Marketing.
1. Risk Management
Change management principles and practices can enhance risk management by offering valuable insights into change-related risks. Risk professionals can leverage change management analytics to assess data-based risk factors, such as business readiness indicators and the potential impact of changes on the organization and its customers. Armed with this data, risk professionals can make informed assessments, helping the organization better understand risk profiles and make well-informed decisions.
2. Strategy and Planning
Strategic planning should not only focus on industry trends and financial data but also incorporate change capability assessments. Considerations should include the availability of change leadership talent, the organization’s capacity for executing change, and the historical performance related to change volume and velocity. The strategic roadmap should integrate historical data on change impact volumes and execution, enabling effective planning. Supporting structures and processes, including governance, reporting, and communities of practice, should be designed to ensure successful change execution.
3. Operations
Operations is a core domain for change management. This function offers numerous opportunities for applying change best practices. It involves building change management capabilities in employees and managers, enhancing employee engagement channels, and facilitating effective learning and development. With the right change data and analytics, Operations can strategically plan business delivery by making predictive assessments of performance based on projected change impacts. The key lies in systematically integrating analysis and decision-making processes within the operating cadence.
4. Project Management
This is the most familiar territory for change management. Many organizations have dedicated change managers responsible for project delivery. The conventional practices of change management, including capability building, change methodologies, portfolio management, and project delivery, are all part of the project management function.
5. Human Resources
Human Resources often plays a central role in supporting the people side of change. The function includes building change management capabilities as part of learning and development efforts. However, there’s substantial value in managing restructuring initiatives as change projects, and adhering to structured change management practices. This structured approach ensures that affected stakeholders are appropriately engaged, and processes, systems, and supporting structures impacted by change are meticulously mapped.
6. Technology
Change management is not limited to large projects; it extends to technology changes that impact stakeholders and users. Even smaller technology initiatives can benefit from the application of change management principles. Change management analytics can facilitate better technology releases and deployments. By considering change impact data, organizations can plan technical releases more effectively, taking into account organizational impacts.
7. Marketing and Customer Experience
Change management practices can play a pivotal role in marketing and customer experience functions. Customer change impacts, such as external positioning and alignment with customer needs, should be integral to marketing campaigns, product launches, and communications. These practices, including impact assessment, change analytics, and change planning, enable organizations to deliver what they promise to customers.
In closing, the true value of change maturity emerges when it becomes a part of various organizational functions. It’s not just about developing isolated methodologies or supporting initiative delivery; it’s about becoming an organization where change is seamlessly integrated into every facet.
Ready to Elevate Your Change Maturity?
The journey to achieving a higher level of change maturity begins with holistic integration within your organization. If you’re interested in exploring how The Change Compass can help you in this transformative process, we invite you to book a weekly demo with us.
