Often change approaches are built not using a structured and
well-defined series of logics but often using a cookie-cutter, standard change
approach or change strategy template. In
some cases, a ‘gut-feel’ may also be used based on stakeholder wishes or
preferences. These are subject to
stakeholder criticism nor do not achieve the goals of the initiative.
The usual standard change approach for most initiatives often
entail the following.
Stakeholder engagement – setting up forums and
sending emails to stakeholders
Training – planning for and executing training
delivery to ensure users understand the new system/process
Pre-go live readiness – send reminder emails and
build intranet articles to raise awareness
How might we better derive change approach using sound logic and an evidence-backed approach?
One way to construct a logical, structured and well-thought-through change approach is by using a logic tree. A logic tree is a visualization that captures all the component parts of a problem, in order to make it easier to identify a hypothesis that can then be tested using data and analysis. Logic trees are great for making decisions by visually decomposing the various elements and reviewing these holistically.
In the following example, a family uses a logic tree to decide which new town to move to by narrowing almost 30 possible potential locations to just one. In the following diagram (from Bulletproof problem solving, Wiley 2019) you can see how this family started with the problem it is trying to solve, and then broke down the problem into its elements. Then within each branch a weighting is assigned to each branch, in terms of percentages. Then each sub-branch is also assigned weightings.
Then as a next step data can be collected to determine which town meets the various criteria as defined in the logic tree. By doing this, laying out the various components, and analysing its weightings, you can derive the best location.
This is how McKinsey consultants and other strategy consultants
solve large complex problems. The logic
tree forces you to structure your problem versus being lost in focusing on
certain approaches and neglecting others.
Any problem can be solved using this approach. Even the largest of problems can be broken
down into its smallest components.
Strategy consultants then go through every branch to analyse
them and collect data to prove or disprove each branch one by one. This means, that each branch or hypothesis is
tested and proven or disproven. In this
way, every option is considered and the chance of making a wrong decision is
So how might we build a logic tree that helps derive the
change approach for an initiative?
Start by defining the problem or question to be addressed. What is the goal of the initiative? Is it to implement a new system that is fully adopted by its users? Is it to increase cross-selling by sharing customer information across business units?
Think of the broader buckets of each branch. What are the core types of change approaches to address the problem? Think widely and carefully about all the types of buckets possible that would address the problem.
Expand the branches until you have covered all possibilities
Go through and assign a weighting in percentage terms to each branch and then use this to determine the focus and importance you may want to place on certain branches in terms of research and data collection
Go through each branch and systematically to reject any that do not apply based on data. For example, one branch could be to use video as a channel to communicate. However if the data shows that previous usage of video to communicate key messages did not result in raising awareness for this stakeholder group, then reject this option
Here is one partial example of deriving a change approach for a customer complaints project.
One important principle to note when building branches is to ensure that the branches are MECE. MECE stands for mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. Mutually exclusive means that you need to ensure that each branch is unique and does not overlap with any other branch. Collectively exhaustive means that every option or alternative has been considered and nothing is left off. In this way, the branches you have built are bulletproof from a logical structure perspective.
Building a change approach using a structured approach that is data-supported and logic tested will earn significant stride with the most critical of your stakeholders. You can even hold a workshop to work with your stakeholders to define the logic tree and assign weightings so that that the agreed approach is one that is clearly visible and logically sound.
Another important point to keep in mind is how each of the branches of the logic tree change approach will interface into the overall change environment. When planning on the execution of the overall change approach or each branch of the approach, one needs to be clear around the velocity and volume of change and what else is happening in the change landscape. Using data visualisation tools such as The Change Compass is one way to grasp and plan around the change environment.
Change Management is full of concepts and frameworks that are outdated and not based on empirical research. It seems that in the business world we are very comfortable with concepts that sound like they make sense intuitively. If the concept is simple and interesting then we’re in. We don’t require them to have any scientific proof and research is often not required.
Let’s take one example. The Kubler-Ross model is one of the most popular models that outlines the 5 stages of grief by a psychiatrist from the book ‘On Death and Dying’. The 5 stages are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. However, there is a lack of empirical research supporting these 5 stages, and in fact research suggests other expressions of grief.
Moreover, we’ve somehow applied this model to change management assuming that it is relevant. Whilst dying is a change process, this context cannot be generalised across all other changes such as implementing a new system, a new product or a new policy. Moreover, there is no research supporting this. In fact, we all know that there are lots of people who do not go through these phases during lots of change processes. And certainly it would be hard to imagine someone going through these phases after buying a new desirable iPhone from a previous older model?
Now, if there are so many popular concepts that are not backed up by research what should we use that is based on proven evidence? Self determination theory (SDT) by Edward Deci and Richard Bryan should be one that the change management community adopt. It is a broad-based theory about human motivation focuses on people’s inherent growth tendencies and our innate psychological needs. There has been significant research supporting this theory since the 1970s and more research is underway.
What is the self determination theory about motivation?
The theory states that there are 3 innate human needs that if met will provide motivation, motivation to undertake tasks, to develop and to undergo change. These 3 elements are:
1) Competence The experience of mastery and being effective at ones activity. When people feel that they have the skills required to be successful they are much more likely to take on tasks that will help them achieve their goals
2) Relatedness The need to feel belonging and connectedness to others.
3) Autonomy The feeling of choice and control over one’s focus.
Each of the three elements contributes to motivation, by having the right level of skills and confidence, by wanting to be connected to others and by feeling in control over one’s focus or task.
Some implications of these 3 elements on how we manage change include:
1) Simply conducting training may not address someone’s level of competence. The outcome is that they need to feel confident. This means that there should be a holistic focus on a range of learning interventions to promote and support confidence, such as managerial acknowledgement, catering to individual learning styles, supportive learning environment/community after training session, etc.
2) Change activities should not be implemented for individuals in isolation to others. For example, if elearning is utilised, the change approach should design to provide visibility on how others are undergoing the change process, where they are share their experiences. This is why change champions are so important since effective champions promote and build a supportive community
3) Especially for more significant changes, it is important to design into the change process a sense of autonomy for those impacted. This may seem contradictory to how most company implement change, i.e. one that is characterised by one common set of activities for all employees. What this important to emphasise according to SDT is to build in employee involvement so that they feel that they are shaping and developing the change versus being negatively impacted by it with no choice whatsoever.
There are 2 types of motivations:
1) Controlled Motivation
• “The carrot and the stick” approach to motivating someone • Seduced into the behaviour • Coerced into the behaviour, often with the threat of punishment • Experience of tension and anxiety
Employees that work in a controlled motivation environment usually have negative emotions and their confidence and well-being also suffer. Also, in this environment employees usually take the shortest path to reach the desired outcome. This may or may not have the best consequences for the company. If the company is trying to stipulate a set of behaviours, these may be avoided or blind-sighted to get to the ultimate ‘measure’.
2) Autonomous motivation:
• Experience of volition and choice about the work that one is doing • If the person enjoys the work and finds it interesting, then the autonomous motivation level increases • If the values of the work is consistent with the values of the individual this also increases motivation • If the person endorses the work, then he or she will also be more motivated to undertake the work
Organisations want more autonomous individuals that are aligned their work. Why?
Because research has found that autonomous workers are: • More creative • Better problem solvers and be able to think outside of the box • Better performance • More positive emotions • Better psychological and physical wellbeing
So how do we promote a change environment that develops autonomous workers?
• Take the perspectives of the workers and their mindset, and be clear around what moves them, what bugs them, what they get excited or bored about, their core values and interests, etc. • Providing them with choice and the ability to participate in the change and the decision-making process where possible. This will encourage their buy-in and engagement • Support them with exploring different ideas and trying new ways of approaching the work in a different way. This approach is also very consistent with agile ways of working, encouraging innovation and ‘safe to fail’ environment • Encouraging them to be self-starters and self-initiated • Provide them with a strong and meaningful rationale of the ‘why’ of the purpose of the change so that they understand the reasons behind the change
Edward Deci goes on further to state “Don’t ask how you can motivate others, ask how you can create the conditions for them to motivate themselves”.
From activity driven to design-driven
One of the biggest implication from SDT is that next time you design your change intervention you should focus away from key standard change management activities such as communications and training. Instead, focus on creating and designing the environment from which people can motivate themselves.
This is a fundamental shift for a lot of change practitioners and requires a depth of understanding about how the organisation functions and what will move its dial. It is not about implementing 1 or 2 core activities, it is about implementing a range of interventions to shape the environment to support change.
Some practical ways in which you can design an environment to promote change motivation:
1) Workshops for participants to brainstorm and discuss ways in which they can undergo the change journey 2) Share stories of how other employees have experienced through change personally Use different mediums in which to communicate the change, to appeal to different people preferences (e.g. video, online, face to face, posters, etc.) 3) Leverage key influencers to influence the community Provide sandbox or other platforms (such as online platform, showcase room, etc.) from which employees may experience and play with the new environment 4) Break up the change journey into small steps and milestones and acknowledge each progression 5) Encourage community discussions about the change
The challenge in building change environments
When we start to design a holistic environment for change, most often than not we are designing this for a set of changes and not just one initiative. In this complex, continuous changing environment, we need to be able to keep tab on what the change environment looks like and how it is evolving amongst the various change initiatives.
As different change environment interventions ramp up, we need to be able to visualise how these interventions and activities are impacting the employees and their environment. This includes being able to visualise the pace, scale, nature, and multiplicity of the changes across various parts of the organisation. Using data visualisation tools such as The Change Compass is valuable for organisations within agile environments.
Using the insights and core concepts from the self determination theory will serve
significant value for the change management community. Not only are its concepts well- researched and proven by research, there is a range of directly applicable implications for
the change practitioner. No longer do we have to work with frameworks that are fashionable but lack the rigour of empirical research. The challenge now is how we adopt this within our change approach and ‘change the way we approach change’.
Change management is a broad and diverse discipline with many facets. Just like other disciplines like Finance, Marketing, Human Resources or Management, there are many sub-components. In Finance there are sub-disciplines such as accounting, tax, budgeting, and investment. Likewise, in Human Resources there are sub-disciplines such as employee relations, remuneration, organisational development, business partnering and learning and development.
In change management there are also various sub-disciplines such as change leadership, learning and development, change impact assessment, organisational design, communications and change portfolio management. There are also multiple functions that all claim to have change management skills, for example Human Resources, Project Management, Strategy and Operations Management. To read more about this topic access our infographic ‘Why lots of functions think they are all experts in managing change’.
With so many components to grasp where does one start? And which component is more important? It’s easy to say that all components may be important depending on the nature and context of the change. However, to manage change, one needs to understand what is changing. To understand what is changing, one needs to be crystal clear on what is the change impact on various groups of stakeholders, internal or external to the organisation. It is only after a deep understanding of the impact that it is possible to plan how the change can be managed.
Too often, generic change approaches are used such as training and communications without a detailed understanding the nature of the change to the impacted stakeholder. The result is that the change interventions miss the mark, resulting in resistance and lack of support.
How do we understand change ‘impact’? There are many ways to do this.
1. Perception of the change
How does the impacted stakeholder group perceive the impact of the change on him/her? If we are implementing a new system and most of the users are very comfortable and happy with the existing system, then the perception of the new system may be one of scepticism and negativity. This could especially the case if the ‘why’ is not established for needing to transition to a new system.
The perception of the change is about the mindsets, attitudes and expectations of people. These are not easily quantifiable and will require deep understanding of that particular stakeholder group and the history of how they have transitioned through different changes.
The perception of the change can also be positive or negative. Positive perceptions of change could be the result of a perception or expectation of benefit, for example the system may be easier to use, saves time or accomplishes significant tasks that are not possible with the existing system. Negative perception could result if the benefit case is not clear, or worse, perceived to be adding more time, more complex and providing less value.
Typical ways to understand the perception of stakeholders may involve surveys, interviews and focus groups.
2. Severity of impact
Another way to assess and understand the impact of change is the severity of level of the change impact. Is the impact such that significant investment and resources are required to undergo the change? Such as a major restructuring exercise. Or is the impact small as it only involves a minor process tweak and only requires emails to notify those impacted?
The severity of the impact may be measured and quantified using a Likert scale. For example, 1 could be deemed as small impact, 3 being medium in impact, and 5 being very high in impact.
Note that if you are using a scale to rate change impact it is advisable to use a 5-point scale versus a 10-point or 3-point scale. 10-point scale is quite complex for the average person to understand and select from. For example, how would one select between 6/10 versus 7/10 and there may not be that much material difference between the two levels of impact across change initiatives.
Likewise, a 3-point scale is too few of a scale to be of any value. Most organisations have multiple changes going on, and all impacts of changes are forcibly categorised into one of 3 categories. The result is that the analysis becomes too general and not sufficiently detailed to differentiate the levels of impact in any meaningful way.
3. Capacity of impact
Another way to understand the impact of change is to assess to what extent the capacity of the stakeholder is affected in order to digest and transition through the change. For example, what effort and activities are involved for managers of a business unit to be sufficiently briefed about the new system so that they can then lead their teams through the process? What are the learning requirements and what support is required?
If a change is more complex and requires significant effort and involvement to go through the change process, then what are these activities and how do they impact the stakeholder group?
Typical change and transition activities that could impact the capacity of the stakeholder group include:
Town halls or briefing sessions
Workshops and focus groups
Involvement of subject-matter-experts
Watching videos or reading emails about the initiative
Team meetings to discuss the change
Learning and development sessions
Practice and gradual familiarity required
Providing feedback about the change
Attending any celebration or other events related to the initiative
Another way to view capacity of the impacted stakeholder is to examine what else is going on during the time of the implementation of the change. Are there are other changes or key work tasks that are notable? For example, is the change happening during peak customer period or major annual peak work cycle such as end of financial year or audit? If so, the capacity of the stakeholder could be greater reduced.
In fact, for most large organisations there is usually at least a few change initiatives occurring at most times. The trick is then to work around the anticipated capacity and bandwidth challenges ahead of the game, and plan around them. To learn how to do this, read our suite of articles on change portfolio management to learn how to manage multiple changes.
4. Time Impact
Stakeholder capacity can also be measured and quantified using time. In fact, all aspects of change impact will have an element of time impact. This includes all facets of mindset changes, learning the new system, digesting and understanding emails and information packs, attending the various sessions and meetings, and practicing how to operate the new system.
In this way, by quantifying the various change impacts of a particular initiative on various stakeholder groups, it is possible to estimate the time ranges of impact. This becomes very valuable particularly for those teams that are highly time-sensitive. These could be call centre teams. They can also be Finance teams during month-end or year-end period where they are busy consolidating finances. Customer complaints and resolutions teams may also be busy during end of year periods where there could be high customer volumes.
How do we put these into use?
Change impact assessment is the process of assessing and evaluating the nature of change impacts on various stakeholder groups. By leveraging the above ways in which to assess the impact of change, change impact assessment can result in a detailed set of information from which we can then set the change approach. It is only after we understand the ‘what’ of the change that we can then design ‘how’ we are going to transition stakeholder through the change.
The completed change impact assessment should also be socialised and verified with those impacted. Without this verification process, it could be that those who are impacted do not agree what the change impacts captured. Or that, there could be other impacts that are missed in the assessment.
At The Change Compass we provide a cloud-based tool in which organisations can input and visualise change impact information. By visualising the data, we can assess any risks and opportunities in terms of:
Groups that may need additional support due to the complexity, volume or complexity of the change
Comparing different stakeholder groups to assess which ones are the most critical to the success the initiative and to what extent their capacity is impacted, in terms of time
Plot the change saturation points for different parts of the business and assess to what extent changes exceed these points. From this assessment, determine any risk mitigation strategies, such as re-prioritisation, providing additional resources, or change implementation timeline
Assess to what extent impacts (across initiatives) on different parts of the business are aligned to the strategic goals. Are the largest impacts on parts of the business as expected according to the strategy? Is the organisation’s implementation impacts more on operational efficiency versus growth? And does this match the strategic intent?