When businesses undertake change efforts, some fail and others succeed. There is no magic to the ones that succeed. A major driver of their success is the level of quantum effort that is committed to preparing the business and its employees for change. The reason for the change may be compelling, the landing point of the change may be necessary for business survival and the willingness to do the work, may be present. The problem may be that the methodology for getting from point A to point Z may be deficient in one area. The preparation stage.
Many businesses are so eager to get out of their current state and to arrive at the future state, that they sacrifice the application of thoroughness to the process. Often, this neglect shows up in the undermanagement of the human end of change. Why does it happen? I believe it’s because it’s easier to manage the technical and logistical aspects of change and harder to manage the people end, especially if the business is not highly practiced in industrial organizational psychology.
The most notable move that differentiates the businesses that perform well in the management of change, from their less fortunate counterparts, is their human-centered approach to the process.
The most notable move that differentiates the businesses that perform well in the management of change, from their less fortunate counterparts, is their human-centered approach to the process. These businesses are preoccupied with ensuring that the business case for change is clearly communicated, that the landing point of the change is understood and the methodology for getting to the endgame makes provision for welcoming all ideas.
The journey of preparing the business and its employees for adjustment and the transition process starts with the crafting of a compelling rationale for the change, so that it makes sense to everyone who’s affected. The necessary messaging is not shared once and forgotten. It is shared multiple times, using multiple channels and multiple agents whose leadership currency is credible. The messaging must be sustained to the point where persons are just short of the point of feeling bombarded.
The journey of preparing the business and its employees for adjustment and the transition process starts with the crafting of a compelling rationale for the change, so that it makes sense to everyone who’s affected.
This is what we call overcommunication and its role is to pre-empt the rise of misinformation and disinformation due to lack of credible messaging coming from respected sources. Another thing. The messaging should cover both conventional and social communication channels, to benefit from the broadest reach.
In the preparation stage, empathy is authenticated and democratized across the business. There is a deep understanding beyond the textbook teachings, that because individuals change one by one and not in a group, the “what’s in it for me” or (WIIFM) question has to be personal to each employee. A clear and compelling connection should be made between the need for change and the benefit of that change to the individual employee.
An important ingredient to driving opting-in, is to ensure that the voice of the employee is heard, understood and not overlooked.
When this connection makes sense to employees, they are more apt to opt-in to the change. Now there’s a difference between buying-in and an opting-in to change. A buy-in to change means that an individual acknowledges the need for the change, whilst the opt-in signals the willingness and readiness to change and to be a participant in the change process. Businesses that understand the potency of change readiness, ensure that a critical mass of employees have opted-in to the change.
An important ingredient to driving opting-in, is to ensure that the voice of the employee is heard, understood and not overlooked. When employees feel voiceless and silenced, a counterproductive resistance movement may be the unwanted outcome. To the employee, this may seem to be the only way of having his or her voice heard and acknowledged. After all, negative attention is still attention, isn’t it?
For those businesses that take the time to understand the intricacies of human-centered change, there’s a more careful and considered approach. These businesses understand the tremendous contribution that preparation makes to the overall success of any change intervention.
Spend 80 percent of the change effort in preparation, so as to increase the probability of success in the 20 percent deployment.
Furthermore, there is an appreciation of the difference between change and transition. When an existing process undergoes a major overhaul, that’s change. The time that it takes a technician to master the new process and for new learnings to become baked-in, that’s known as transition.
A human-centered approach to the change process makes provision for the difference between change and transition. The most valuable payoff of this provision, is the achievement of progressive momentum, the positive integration of employee enthusiasm and the avoidance of discontinuity in the moving parts of the transition, that could lead to implosion of the process.
My recommendation to any business that may be on its change journey, is to apply the eighty-twenty rule. Spend 80 percent of the change effort in preparation, so as to increase the probability of success in the 20 percent deployment.