Chapter 9. Stage four: Change
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of trying to change others.
—Jacob M. Braude
Change is the fun part of the whole process. This is where the action takes place, careers are made and reputations destroyed. At this stage, as a consultant you might put on your project management hat, pull out the 25-page work structure breakdown and launch into a rambling discussion about milestones, critical paths and percentage completion factors. Clearly, these issues need to be included, but this aspect of the process has been sufficiently well documented elsewhere so it has not been covered in this book.
The focus is on the meta-level factors, the issues that have a subtle but significant impact on the change process. It is these softer factors that can often be pushed to one side. However, only by taking care of the soft issue will the hard deliverables be achieved. The impact of missing these issues is seen in the following examples:
An engineering company brings in a change consultant to help shift the management style from autocratic to collaborative. The problem is that they try to use their old command and control style to implement the changes. The result is that staff react against the change, suggesting that it is only a fad and that when the next downturn comes the company will revert to the usual style of management. The company cancels the contract with the consultant on the basis that the people are unable or unwilling to accept any reasonable change.
The IN-Ovation consulting company is employed by a marketing director to introduce a number of new and radical creativity models into the product management teams. However, the daily rate that IN-Ovation charges is twice that of the nearest competitor and the finance director is not happy about such a large expenditure, especially at the end of the financial year. The end result is that the finance director has sufficient energy and power within the company to persuade the CEO to pressure the marketing director to employ a company that operates in a lower price bracket.
As part of a reengineering project, a consultant is asked to design and manage a workshop for senior managers. The goal is to present the findings of the early research team and get people to support the next wave of changes. But the event is ill-thought-out, people don't understand why they are at the workshop and there is little follow-up action. The result is that when the managers are asked to nominate people to get involved in the next phase, they have little belief in the change process and so hide their best people and offer the low performers. This corrupts the development phase and causes major problems for the consultants in the next wave.
It was the second progress review with the board and things weren't going too well. At the beginning of the project, the consultant presented a clear, concise and detailed project report. It spelled out the core change streams, who would own them and gave specific milestones. The problem was that following a reorganization in the IT and accounting departments, several of the stream owners had moved on and the consultant was having problems finding new owners. This resulted in three of the key milestones being delayed, which in turn pushed the final date of the project back. The problem was that the board had been sold on the idea of a highly controlled change process and the slippage after only two months meant that they were beginning to investigate the idea of bringing in a new project manager to bring the engagement back on track.
As Senge et al. (1999) suggest, most change initiatives fail. In many cases the supposed failure rate for total quality and reengineering initiatives is around 70 per cent. Kotter's study of a hundred top management-driven corporate transformations concluded that more than half did not survive the initial phase (Kotter, 1999).
The failure to recognize or resolve this problem is often shielded by the cloak of political intrigue or the simple fact that organizations change so fast that the failures are lost in the mists of time. The premise is that effective change is not about increased technical or project management capability, it is more about the need to understand the meta-processes that drive and support change. These are the actions that need to be understood irrespective of the nature of the change or the industry. However, these factors are often viewed as the soft processes, the intangible elements that get left aside once the ball is in the air and the crowd is baying for blood.
My underlying message is that often within an engagement, the soft issues are the hardest. Although the development and management of the project plan, along with the associated task activities is difficult and often labour intensive, it is important to ensure that the more intangible issues are not overlooked as the heat gets turned up. The Change stage of the Seven Cs model includes the following themes:
Methodology: Determine from the outset what methodology will be used to drive the engagement.
Energy: Change is driven by energy; the consultant must have a clear appreciation of where the energy will come from and how it will be dissipated across the different stakeholders.
Engage: How can people be encouraged to be involved in the transformation?
Entry: What is the best level of entry to effect a long-lasting change?
Uncertainty: How is it possible to construct a plan that has the capacity to operate in a dynamic and complex world?
Resistance: Undertake a reality check to see how people will react to the proposed action.