Is it really possible to manage change or is it just an illusion, or rather a utopia? Isn't it more likely - or even unavoidable - that change manages us? Isn't change a natural process - such as living/surviving or evolving - that nobody can voluntary control? This is where the ambiguity comes up.
And what about change management in companies? ...the so called and claimed "huge changes" ? Also firms change in order to be more competitive (evolution) or just survive... Changes within Companies seem to be very often painful and more difficult than planned. Apparently, the steps to govern a change program are very logical: to define the business objectives, to launch a program with a bunch of projects, to check results and decide the appropriate corrective actions.
In the last nineteen years I was involved in several significant change programs (and most even successful, unbelievable!) in multiple business context, both as a consultant and within a company, yet I am not really sure that there is an established discipline or practice to manage change (I would exclude "good luck" as a practice). In my opinion any dilemmas have still to be solved. Some examples...
First dilemma: to launch a specific project structure with a separate project budget or let the different functions manage their own projects within the change program?
| | PROS | CONTRAS | | Separate program structure & budget | - Easier control over projects status and costs/benefits, governance of project overlaps.
- Visibility of the change program to employees
| - Conflicts with functions that loose their project budget and resources.
- Risk of lack of ownership/responsibility for the project outcomes.
- Extra effort in terms of creation of a Program Office.
- Problem of relocation of the employees at the end of the Change Program (very much under estimated issue...)
| | Projects within the functions | - Complete ownership of project and relevant outcomes.
- People can be assigned both to projects and business as usual with more flexibility
| - Potential misusage of resources assigned to projects.
- Scarce visibility on projects achievements
|
Second dilemma: to involve primarily consultants to run the projects or to staff them with company employees?
| | PROS | CONTRAS | | Primarily consultants involved | - No internal project stuffing required, no people relocation problems at the end of the program
- Minor impact on employees activities during the projects (involvement only in interviews and meetings)
- High expertise/competency available (if not, new consulting partners)
| - Lack of knowledge of the company
- Lack of buy-in by impacted employees
- Potential suspicious attitude by employees that could jeopardize the project progress
- High costs for consultancy
| | Change projects staffed with Employees | - Full knowledge of the company
- Enhancement of employees competencies through participating in projects
- More buy-in by the involved employees(potential change champions)
| - Resources availability (already busy in their job position) to staff in the new projects
- Conflict of resources among and within functions
- Potential transfer of employees from different locations to staff the projects (more costs)
|
Third dilemma: if the option "Employees" has been chosen, the dilemma becomes: to select the best and more competent/experienced ones (and depredate business) or to get rid of "crap" and offer them especially if projects are allocated to a central structure?
| | PROS | CONTRAS | | Best employees | - Right resources involved, unfortunately it includes a fight with the relevant functions if the change program is run centrally
| - Lack of resources to run business as usual, potential complains by customer
| | Crap | - None: crap in ---> crap out
| - It is non-sense to enroll the worst resources to design the future of the company ...
|
Fourth dilemma: Focus on the hard side of change (infrastructures, technology, processes, operations etc.) or on the soft side (employees, customers)?
| | PROS | CONTRAS | | Hard side | - Necessary but not sufficient. The "company machine" is nearly ready to go: the bodywork is there...the motor is missing
| - Potential resistance to change from employees or lack of buy-in, if the soft side is not managed
- Customers are not informed of the improvements in the company relevant to them
| | Soft side | - Employees are motivated...
----------------->
- Customers are well disposed towards the announced benefits...
----------------->
| - but then to keep their motivation they need the right tools and processes to work
- that they want to see for themselves
|
Fifth dilemma: to communicate to employees the change impact from the beginning?
| | PROS | CONTRAS | | Communicate early and clearly | - Employees can decide whether to stay or go. Who wants to stay has chances and is committed
- Employees appreciate transparency and become more keen to co-operate
| - It is a brave, though correct, approach: the best resources could leave the company, if not convenient for them
- Unions can slow down the process from the beginning
| | Wait and see and eventually hide | - Silence may delay potential obstacles such resistance, union struggles, resigning
| - The relationship with employees can deteriorate and generate a state of paralysis at work waiting to know about the future of the company
|
Based on my experiences I could summarize that companies are often neotenic in relation with the management of change, meaning that it takes companies long time to learn how to handle it, exactly as it occurs to humans beings, whose childhood and adolescence are extremely long compared to all the animals.
This learning process of firms is hindered also by the obsolescence of the traditional organisation structures, inadequate for the flexibility required by our turbulent world, incapable to create and disband temporary project teams without heavy impact on employees. Most of the traditional -and very diffused - organisation models were designed many years ago, when changes were exceptional and slow. Just think that, apart from marketing and Systems (IT) and the not very successful e-commerce, no new functions have been created in the last twenty years in most companies.
As far as I know, there have been brave attempts by a few companies to create new functions/ departments/roles to support their changing business needs, but the attention to cost cutting dictated by the current economic crisis has not encouraged innovation in the organisation models. In addition to that, the standardized labour market and headhunters contribute to this organisational rigidity in order to make their search and the match between jobs and candidates easier (isn't it a pity?).
As a last consideration I would like to mention how the efforts to manage change push managers to a metamorphosis that aims to merge their two separate souls: the business as usual mentality and the project mindset. This metamorphosis provides managers with the ability to consider "change as a constant" and to be able to cope with it. In a certain way, we are likely to face a sort of manager's evolution from "homo sapiens" to "homo projecti".
Anon.
 |  |
