In my blog on 26th March I commented on one of the main reasons that change fails - that when change is planned, the people elements are usually the last to be considered and have the least robust plans. I also wrote that the solution is not putting the people elements last. It's putting them right at the top of the agenda. Prioritising the people experience through change, results in the desired benefits being realised and sustained more effectively.But in practice how does a company do that?
The basis of the process is Plan, Do, Review, but with a non-traditional slant, deliberately putting consideration of the people elements at the heart of each stage, designing it in. There are five key steps to embed this in change activity:
- Articulate the desired outcomes and business benefits of the change.Project Managers always stress the importance of scoping a project carefully, of understanding excatly what it aims to achieve. And of course that's true, if the destination is unclear then it's not very likely you'll get there! And as an American journalist called Chuck Palahniuk said: "If you don't know what you want, you end up with a lot you don't." This step is no different to any project. It's really important to understand the desired outcomes and benefits of the change.
- Articulate the employee outcomes required to deliver the desired business outcomes.What most projects don't do, but what is absolutely critical is to think about and articulate how employees will need to be different following the change. If the business benefits are to be realised what will they need to do differently? What actions should they take, how should they behave, what will the business need them to feel? Being clear on these requirements is key. Most change requires people to do something differently so how can the change be effective unless there's clarity on what it is?
- Articulate the employee experience through the change i.e. what will they say?When the required people changes are clear, the next stage is to understand what the experience should be through the change for those involved in it or impacted by it - so that the necessary conditions are in place to produce those people changes. During this stage being very specific is valuable. What things should those involved in or impacted by the change be saying at each stage of the project?
- Embed the employee experience in project design and management.Steps 2 and 3 generate awareness and understanding - which can then be used to drive the design of the project and this ensures that people are at the heart of the project. It means that rather than designing actions that target business outcomes in isolation a joined up holistic approach can be taken. It focuses on the people experience necessary to produce the people changes because the people will ultimately deliver the business benefits.
- Gather feedback through the change and consciously improve the experience.Gathering feedback specifically on the people experience is very important. Are the actions taken stimulating the sorts of comments produced in step 3? And if not, what needs to be done differently? And if they are, how could it be improved anyway?
And the approach produces indirect benefits too. Because the employee experience is better, engagement of those involved in the change (even if the outcome is negative for them personally) is better, as is the perception of others that the change is being done in the right way. That's the reason I call this the 'Good as it can be' process. There can't always be a positive outcome for people following change, but change can always be designed to be as good as it can be for people. For example, and this is certainly topical right now, when undertaking an organisational restructure resulting in redundancies, every organisation wants those who are displaced to leave feeling they've been treated considerately through the process. And that those who remain retain commitment to the organisation because of how they saw colleagues treated.
Designing the people elements in isn't difficult, and is beneficial.
LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019
"There can't always be a positive outcome for people following change, but change can always be designed to be as good as it can be for people."
ReplyDeleteI really like that idea. Is it your experience that designing change to be "as good as it can be" involves giving as much control as possible to employees to define their end state, or have you seen change be more effective when managers articulate the way things will end up?
Hi Robbie - good question.
DeleteI'd always suggest involving both employees and managers. If it's just managers there's a risk that soem of the most important elements of the experience from employees perspective may be missed. Generally I think the risk is not as great when just groups of employees are involved because the group tends to self regulate and prevent the introduction of unrealistic expectations.
Nevertheless, I suggest involving both. There's an added benefit also because the process of involving both parties creates common understandings and engagement with the change, whatever it might be.