Change management is treated by many as an ethereal topic; a mystical process overlayed with a lot of “magic happens here”. Or a process described by one of eight major models of change which by their very nature remains high level.

In my experience, there are four main parameters to be considered to make change happen.

Revolution or Evolution:

Firstly, and most importantly, the question, “Is this really change or just business-as-usual?” Organisations that do not change as part of their business-as-usual have always died since the industrial revolution. The only thing that has changed is the speed at which they die.

“Change” status is bestowed when the change is revolutionary, not evolutionary. Projects which are elevated to a “Transformation” project or “Change” project are usually given a team to manage the implementation of the “Change”.

Elevating a programme of work to “Change” status is a double edged sword. Doing so lends gravity to the programme and gives focus, attracting resources as a consequence. The other edge is that in doing so, it draws valuable resources from business-as-usual and adds considerable risk to the current business.

Keeping a change programme as business-as-usual, with a decent business case for each element of change, has advantages over a revolutionary change programme.

People are less likely to be afraid at the beginning.

Components of the change programme can be modified as circumstances change and learning is gained from previously completed components without appearing to backtrack.

With shorter implementation time line components, scarce project management, programme office and change management skills are required less.

Both approaches can be right in the same environment. The work required and supporting framework is different and the risks are different. It is a judgement call which way to go, however, revolutionary change is not the only way.

Build the rationale:

In either case, the rationale for change has to be believable to build an appropriate business case to get support for budgets and the resources for the work programme. In the case of revolutionary change, the rationale also has to be strong enough for the people who will implement the change to believe in it.

Without that team believing in the change, the risks grow exponentially each day the team does not believe. The implications are that the team must be selected carefully and allowed to opt out if they want and that they must be brought into the action whilst the rationale is being developed and allow them to study and evaluate the data and shape the rationale.

When building the rationale, build it on data taking into account the four levels of data reliability; internal opinion, external opinion, internal facts, external facts. Rationale built solely on opinion or even worse, opinion in the face of facts will create division on the rationale for the length of the change project and a hostile atmosphere of blame after it has failed.

If you don’t have the facts to support or deny a strongly held opinion, find them, either by research or by running a pilot programme.

Build projects that can be supported:

Most organisations have poor project management skills. I do not mean the ability to manipulate a MS Project GANTT chart. I mean, for example, understanding what a critical path is and having experience to manage one, or being able to remain on top of milestones or change control.

Most organisations, however can mange small discrete projects with a short duration of, say, six months, with small discrete outcomes.

Organising yourself in this manner will increase some costs but will increase effectiveness. You will benefit more from discrete early outcome benefits which will cheer the team and the organisation.

Tell them early and tell them often:

There is no doubt that the people who experience the change will also have a significant impact on the success of the change. It is not always true that they have to believe in the rationale for the change, unlike the team which is implementing the change.

What is true is that they need time to adjust to the change and accept it in their own terms. The only way they can do this is to be informed. To be informed about the rationale and data behind the change, and at many points during the change, what we are doing, what we have done and what the results have been.

If in doubt, tell them.

Keep change in your mind as a group of simple principles such as these, or others that work for you and your organisation. Use models to illustrate and build the rationale behind activities which need to be completed, but don’t shoehorn your change into a particular model or theory. Only add complexity when it adds value over the simple approach.

It is difficult to find organisations that would say, “We find that training has little impact on our bottom line year on year”.

Is this because organisations know exactly what return they get from training? The answer to that question is a clear no. The American Society for Training and Development reported that only 3% of organisations measure what happens to their bottom line as a result of training.

Or is it that it is politically incorrect to say in an organisation that has a high investment in training, “We waste our money on training”. My observation is that this is somewhere near the truth.

Designing training that allows adults to learn is no simple feat in itself. A designer (once the objectives of the training are understood) has to design training with four major elements in mind.

Participants must recognise the need for information and rapport with the trainer must be established early, otherwise the trainer’s efforts will be in vain. The opening of any training effort must provide a believable and appropriately challenging answer to the question, “Why am I here?” and must lead to an early engagement between the participants and the trainer.

The design must also be able to reinforce positive behaviour. In doing so, the design must not ignore negative or undesirable behaviour. The design needs to include negative reinforcements to eliminate the undesired behaviour as much as it includes positive reinforcement for desired behaviour.

Retention is a key aspect of training design that is often ignored, in that very few entities undertaking a training programme test for retention. Participants must also have adequate opportunities to practice what they learn to increase levels of retention.

The fourth critical element of training design is transference. Participants must be able to transfer what they have learnt in to a new setting away from the classroom. For example, the workplace!

Participants are more likely to transfer their learning to the workplace when the learning is critical to them doing their job or the learning revisited familiar patterns of work or knowledge. Conversely, they have a high probability of learning transfer when the learning was very new and fresh.

Transference is stopped cold if participants return to a workplace which has policies, processes and measures of processes which promote behaviours opposite to those reinforced in the training. If negative policies, processes and measures are well known and expected to remain after the training then motivation for attending training will be severely hampered as well.

Most training is completed over a period of a day or two. In many industries it is difficult to allow participants the time off to attend even a day’s training hence the training may only be a half day or two hours.

Let me assume that we believe that when we set out to have people learn something and to change their behaviour as a result that we have to address motivation/rapport, reinforcement of desired behaviours, retention of knowledge and transference to the workplace. I then ask the question “How can all of that happen in a two hour or half day or one day training session?”

The simple answer is that it cannot. Workplace learning happens mainly at the workplace, not in the training room.

“Training” designs that typically start with, “What are the training outcomes we want?” do miss the point. The first question must be, “What business outcome do we want?” The second question can be, “What change in behaviours do we need to get the change in business outcomes we want?”

The next set of questions to ask includes:

“What measures do we need to change to reinforce the behaviour we want and discourage the behaviour we do not want?”

“What processes do we have that make it impossible for our employees to exhibit the behaviour we want?”

“What policies do we have that stop our employees from exhibiting the behaviours we want?”
…and finally “What knowledge and skills do our employees need to have to help them exhibit the behaviours we want?”

Even when we get to the design of training using the answers to the last question we must take into account how we are going to pass on knowledge and skills in a class room, how we are going to reinforce those in the workplace, how we are going to aid retention of knowledge and build skills and how we can organise work such that there is ample opportunity to transfer the knowledge to the workplace.

And then we have to work out how we will know that the learning programme is working.

Organisations spend a lot of money on training. I fear that if they looked back over five years at the changes in behaviour that their training had brought, they would say, “Not enough”.

An Overview:
The public and UK Banking sectors are typically very similar and experience many of the same issues and challenges. Both still exhibit incredibly low levels of performance coupled with complacency – whilst the will is low the skills exist to sort it out.

Improvements in public sector or financial service performance will never be very effective when implemented by external consultants or specialists if the internal management capability is not developed as part of this change.

The individual or team tasked with delivering these improvements (whether they be consultants or interim managers) should keep programmes on track by pragmatically working alongside the internal management team to show how they can successfully effect change by transferring knowledge and developing skills. In turn this will leave a lasting, robust legacy.

The Challenges

The opportunities for improvement within the public sector and financial services are broadly the same as those found in the private sector, although the associated challenges are generally much tougher. The public sector and financial services inherently suffer from the following problems:

? Complacently low improvement targets—3% procurement savings for 2008 vs potential
target of 25%.

? 20% value added activity with vastly overstated business value added activity.

? No encouragement or structure for team members to challenge each other nor for functional decision making to work properly.

? Far too many people with very little skills or autonomy to make a difference.

? Misaligned objectives, unskilled complacent management and poor communication.

These problems within the public sector and financial services result in the following issues occurring:

? There are 388 local governments diluting the opportunity to create centres of excellence.

? 20% value added activity.

? Overstated business value add.

? De-motivated, risk adverse teams that have lost sight of the customer.

? Far too many people creating stupid things to do.

? De-motivating change management programmes which are micromanaged centrally from prescriptive consultancy-led strategies, by unaccountable quangos.

? A preoccupation with using consultants that appear to have removed the opportunity for local accountability and decision making, and made fixing the day-to-day issues someone else’s responsibility.

? Lack of customer focus, complacency and arrogance when implementing customer facing changes.

? High cost and minimal value.

? Incestuous recruitment practices which continue to aggravate the situation.

The Inherent Problems

There are several unique challenges which have been created and embedded culturally within the public sector:

? Who is the customer? There is no clear idea of who the customer is and there is a
complete lack of customer focus.

? There is a conflict between centralisation and decentralisation.

? Powerless senior management and a lack of accountability at all levels as well as a deficiency in the skills needed to make a difference.

? A preoccupation with functionally focussed skill sets, rather than quality of management

? Ineffective business processes and fear of stopping doing NVA, as well as a lack of process improvement knowledge.

? Political implications of making effective change – 60% of the UK population now works in the public sector. We estimate that 60% of these workers could be removed.

? The acceptance of a consensus-based decision making approach is squandering value generation.

? Misaligned local objectives vs misguided central initiatives.

? Those looking to effect a change are being viewed as ‘mavericks’ rather than as essential to the public sectors success and therefore supported in making a difference.

How to Tackle These Issues

To turn around Banking or the public sector performance it is necessary to dramatically improve efficiency, cost, customer value and satisfaction, as well as, staff motivation. This is done by:

? Removing ineffective roles, and redefining organisational accountability.

? Creating activity based costing and process maps to measure improvement before and after the project.

? Managing HR issues; staff reductions, etc.

? Redefining core business processes whilst leaving space to liberate teams to make their own decisions locally and within their boundaries of accountability that meet the core objectives.

? Realigning central, local and departmental objectives and functions.

? Leading the team and developing management skills to really deliver and refocus the business on customer value and efficiency.

? Aligning procurement sustainability along with other legislative operations and business objectives.

? Developing the strategic procurement approach to focus on core capability; challenge in sourced activity vs contract management; leverage central spending clout where possible; and review maverick (off contract) spend vs. corporate objectives.

Marriages and corporate mergers in America have at least one thing in common, more than 50 percent end up on the rocks. In fact, according to a McKinsey study, only 23 percent ever recover the costs of walking down the corporate aisle. Another study showed that over 40 percent actually lose shareholder value.

These statistics should quell the corporate urge to merge, but, like young lovers, logic seldom gets in the way of romance.

A merger between families illustrates the difficulty of creating an ideal marriage. Two single parents, each with their own children, pets, and old habits, decide to marry and join their families into one.

Because mom and dad are so in love, they fail to see that the kids don’t get along, the cat hates the dog, and their single TV can only handle one show at a time. Reality slowly begins to creep into paradise.

The cover of the February 7, 2005 issue of Fortune reads “Why Carly’s Big Bet is Failing, referring to Hewlett Packers acquisition of Compaq. And the list goes on:

Take Bell Atlantic and Nynex. They are already experiencing resistance to change from some of their family. The Communications Workers of America have voiced concerns about this merger. Both companies appear to have different approaches to unions. Bell Atlantic appears more confrontational, while Nynex in recent years has tried to build stronger ties to the CWA. How this gets handled, might be the first test of who holds the remote control during prime time in this new family. Will the telecommunications giants work together to develop a strategy for working with the union? Or, will they leave things to chance?

Bell Atlantic and Nynex, was not the only engagement announced recently. Time Warner and Turner, Aetna and US Healthcare, SBC Communications and Pacific Telesis Group have promised to join hands as well. In each instance, the decision to merge makes good business sense. Bright people using sound data, keeping the interests of shareholders in mind, made these decisions. Unfortunately most of the attention will be on regulatory issue, finances, and grand organizational designs. The subtle and seemingly soft issues like how decisions get made may be left to chance. If so, this could be disastrous.

The betrothed companies will need to pay attention to the fact that they are attempting to blend different ways of working. I urge these companies to consider the following as they work on their wedding vows.

How are decisions made? Do they come down from on high like lightning bolts from Zeus, or do people engage in a more democratic and slower process?

How do people get things done? When an accountant needs to talk with her counterpart in marketing, must she go to her boss, who in turn talks to his peer, who in turn relays the message to her subordinate? Or do people just move freely in and out of departments with little formal regard for rank?

What do communications systems look like? Does one company have an integrated management information system complete with e-mail and sophisticated intranet linkages, while its counterpart relies on pneumatic tubes, bulletin boards, and face-to-face contact?

How are people rewarded in the two companies? Who gets bonuses, promotions, and coveted assignments? Does one company applaud risk taking and initiative while the other reveres people who play by the rules?

What’s punished? Is telling the truth like the child in the emperor’s new clothes appreciated or does the speaker find he has just become a pariah?

Since each company believes that its way of operating is how God intended life to be in corporate America, major differences in culture could be difficult issues to face. It will important to persist. Typically, the more powerful partner prevails, but only at a cost. The ?weaker? partner resists being told to change and this leads to subtle or profound resistance that hinders or stops efforts to merge operations. AT&T’s purchase of National Cash Register was a disaster, in large part, because the far-larger parent company tried to inflict its culture on a company that was proud of its rich heritage.

There is a choice. The two companies can identify these differences. Recognize what’s good about each culture and then determine jointly how they will face the future as a unified force. All these proposed mergers will face many tests to their cultures over the coming months. They can use these incidents as opportunities to examine differences and consciously select a way of working that fits the challenges they will face in coming years, or they can just hope they will live happily ever after.

Leading a change programme is a risky business, for the leader and the lead. The law of unintended consequences applies in full as change involves people. People see the the starting and finishing points and the intention of change from their point of view and act accordingly.

At a micro level, people have a unique ability when communicating to filter the inputs based on their environment, their mood, their upbringing and the degree of trust in which they hold the communicator. At a macro level this means that people as groups will understand change very differently to what was intended.

At a simple level, the use of performance indicators often leads to unintended consequences. Calls centres are particularly adept at getting performance measures constructed precisely to have a deleterious effect on the business in which they operate.

For example, call waiting time measures should encourage call centre consultants to ensure that “no one” has to wait more than the three for or five rings laid down in their processes and policies manual.

In many cases it only encourages consultants to hang up on existing calls as they usually can see the performance measure current status flashing at them from an overhead sign.

Couple this with another measure, which dictates on average how long a consultant should talk to a customer and the consultant now has two reasons to hang up before the customer has satisfied the concern that made them call in the first place.

Whilst these consequences are not satisfactory to the customer, the unintended consequence for the business is that the customer calls back at some other stage. The average level of repeat calls that can be taken out of a call centre in my experience is of the order of thirty percent! Most of that benefit comes from matching calls to consultants with the right competence and authority and getting the performance measures right!

Policies are another area which nearly always has unintended consequences. This is especially so if the policy document confuses policy with process and parameters and sets out to imagine every circumstance in which the policy may be relevant.

By saying “We will pay all reasonable expenses attributable to the project” is the policy and setting up parameters a test for reasonableness separately we can have a simple policy administrable in almost all occasions.

Instead, we tend to state every event under which an expense will be paid. The unintended consequence is that we teach our employees to falsify documents to ensure their expense claim “fits” a preset event description.

Credit policies are another area rich in unintended consequences. In one instance I know, a credit policy in a Latin American country which had extremely high inflation in the past was retained even after inflation was normalised. The policy was that all customers had to have each load of product they were ordering approved by a person outside of the order and despatch function. If implemented, this delayed despatch by up to a day.

The intended consequence was to retain control over debtors. The unintended consequence was customers ordering multiple loads and getting them approved before they needed them and cancel them if necessary. The implications for the company involved were that despatch never knew how many trucks and drivers to organise for any given day.

Legislation provides an even richer field of unintended consequences. When legislation is drafted with not only the parameters through which the legislation will control the issue of interest, but also the value of the parameters, it creates several unintended consequence.

One consequence is that the legislation, in becoming too prescriptive does not allow for changes in community standards or business standards over time. A second related consequence is that as the legislation is often not amended or updated for twenty years or more, people often seek ways around the legislation, not just the parameters. Another consequence however, is a person breaking the law without knowing it as they are behaving within the norms of society.

In everything we do in business or in the public service as we attempt to change the way we work, the possibility of unintended consequences lurks. Whilst there is no universal sure cure, thinking systemically about problems and issues we are trying to solve helps reduce the risk considerably.

Peter Senge has written several books about thinking systemically that are well worth a read for anyone contemplating change.

Additionally, conducting some contingency planning helps reduce the probability and impact of unintended consequences. Contingency planning is fun. Thinking of every whacky thing that could happen and developing actions to reduce the impact and or the probability of it happening even gets useful contributions from the doomsayers.

Learning from errors makes fascinating reading from other peoples experiences. Don’t let your experiences in managing change be fascinating reading on the account of your unintended consequences.

Change has been occurring since before the beginning of man, so it is a fair bet that it will not stop soon. Whether organisations like it or not, they will change.

External influences change the constraints an organisation has, the expectations their stakeholders place upon them and change the values and capabilities of their people. What separates organisations from one another is how they deal with change.

Some react to change along a conservative line, waiting until the last moment to adapt to change. They resist change at every turn, believing in the intrinsic value of “tradition”. They tend to be backward looking, remembering the “good old days” and ignoring the here and now.

They do gain some advantage in being able to learn from others mistakes and successes. Unfortunately for them, if they face competition change may come too late to survive.

If they have a monopoly then it is time to pity their poor customers for having to suffer products and services befitting the era of their parents or grandparents. If they are a government entity then pity the poor country as it loses competitiveness in an ever freer global trading environment.

Some go along with the flow, not resisting change but not embracing it. They take a somewhat conservative line, sensing their operating environment so as not to fall too far behind the change and organising themselves to ensure that the change has a low impact on their organisation.

Others though, embrace change, sensing that the time is right to make bold changes and chase audacious goals. With a combination of internal drive, common goals and inspirational leadership these organisations add to the pressure other organisations feel to make change happen also.

The role of leaders in an organisation that embraces change is paramount. The stresses and strains placed on a leader are immense and usually underestimated.

The impact of this underestimation is that many times leaders fail. They do not have the focus, the sense of, and ability to create order, the tolerance for uncertainty, the human touch and the sheer stamina required to see the change through.

Leading change requires focus on the end game. It’s like staring in a candle when all that can be seen is the bright burning flame of the end result. The end result must be able to be communicated simply and readily understood. If it cannot be expressed in a single sentence then it is unlikely to be understood.

The road to the end result must be clear. It does not have to be expressed in a level of detail that requires a two thousand line Microsoft Project plan. What must be clear are the next steps and the means by which the following steps will be determined.

The end game and the next steps for sixty to ninety days must be clear. Each individual in the organisation can then contribute to either the next sixty to ninety days of action or further planning to get closer to the end game.

The role of a leader is not only to arrange the resources to plan and execute the next steps but to provide comfort to others who are unable to cope with the ambiguity of a change project.

Ambiguity always arises in a change project as change is as much about people’s behaviour as it is about process and policy. The very starting of a change project will create a change in behaviour from fear or anxiousness or eagerness. The behavioural impact of changes made will always therefore be ambiguous and changes will inevitably be made to well thought through plans which did not work.

Most people cannot cope with ambiguity. The leader needs to refocus the team and provide the emotional surety that solutions can be found.

Leaders of change need to be able to demonstrate a wide range of styles during a change programme. Autocratic and democratic styles will work during different phases of change as will being a facilitator or a coach, but at all times a leader must show a human touch.

Leaders must be able to show that even in making tough decisions they understand the impact on people. That is, not to shy away from the decision, but to show empathy. Leaders have to show this human touch and not expect words to be enough.

Leaders of change are on show all the time. They must remain focused, positive and encouraging. Even the slightest lapse can put a project back months or in some cases be terminal. It takes great stamina to lead significant change.

Leading change is tough and lonely but also rewarding as true leaders of change will witness the development of other leaders following in their footsteps. When that happens, it is worth being on show 24×7.

If you’re looking to accomplish more goals this coming year then forget about New Year’s resolutions. The people that profit the most from New Year’s resolutions are…

* Owners of fitness centers
* Authors of weight loss books
* People who sell programs about how to make money online
* Other sellers of things we use to try to fulfill our dreams and fantasies

The people that make the resolutions don’t tend to benefit as much from their resolutions. Case in point: When is the last time you heard someone say something like, “I started my successful business as a result of a New Year’s resolution?”

I’ve never heard anyone say that and I suspect you haven’t either. That’s because resolutions are mostly based on feelings. It’s the beginning of a new year and we want it to be a new beginning for ourselves as well.

This desire for change is well and good, of course. The momentum that comes from change helps propel us forward. But instead of expecting a resolution to give you this momentum (it won’t) I recommend trying this exercise instead.

What You Should Be Doing Instead of Relying on Your New Year’s Resolutions

1. After the first of the year, schedule an appointment with yourself. Grab a notebook or a laptop and go to a quiet place-a coffee shop, a room in your house, or even a night alone in a hotel-and write a letter to yourself as if you were writing from the future, one year from now.

In my book Keep Any Promise I write about the importance of setting audacious goals.In this letter, describe what you are doing a year from now and make sure what you’re describing -career, house, vacations or whatever your writing about is audacious as possible. But, don’t make it totally outside the realm of possibility.

2. Remember, you are writing the letter to yourself from the future. Address the letter to yourself and sign it with your name. Here’s an example of something I might write:

“Dear Karim,

No doubt that it is a freezing cold Canadian winter day as you’re reading this. Rest assured that a year from this date you will be spending a vacation in the Fiji Islands. The weather here is perfect.

The Keep Any Promise Live Workshops were more successful this past year than I could have possibly imagined. Enrollment was more than triple what it was last year, making the Fiji trip possible…”

Write in this way for as many paragraphs and pages as you wish. Don’t worry about grammar and writing style because no one else has to see this letter. The whole purpose is to get you thinking beyond mere resolutions and thinking much bigger and more long term than you normally would.

3. Don’t restrict yourself to things like career and vacation. Feel free to talk about things like home decor and other small goals you might have. Those are important too. For example, maybe there’s an expensive appliance you’ve wanted for some time but couldn’t afford. Things like this have a place in the letter too.

4. After writing the letter, read it very carefully and meditate upon it. In your mind’s eye visualize the things in your letter coming to pass. Then put the letter away until the next year. Resist the temptation to pull it out and read it during the year. Wait and reread it a year from now and before writing your next letter. I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised at how close you’ve come to achieving the audacious goals of the previous year-maybe you will have even surpassed some of them!

Accomplishing Goals Can Become Automatic

If you follow my advice, you will accomplish more goals than if you just set mere resolutions that fade away before Valentine’s Day. You’ll find yourself automatically making decisions throughout the year that will make your audacious goals possible. This will happen without you even realizing it. For example, if I had set the audacious goal of a trip to Fiji, throughout the year I will automatically notice ads for Fiji. I would find myself making decisions in my business to increase my income so that I can pay for the trip. It has a snowball effect!

The story format really helps pull everything together and it will help you visualize your audacious goals and implant them in your subconscious. Now, you will be able to achieve more in the next 12 months than you have in the previous 12 years.

I sure was!

I was in Tahoe last week as four BIG storms brought over ten feet of snow. It was slick as a gut, drifted so deep in places that even Thelma (my F-250 turbo diesel truck) had a hard time getting through. After they plowed the roads, it was still a mess with melting, freezing and lotsa black ice.

I skied every day. To get to the hill in the morning – I had to constantly change Thelma between 4-Wheel Drive High and Low. It took 4WD Low (with my wheel hubs locked) to get moving in my driveway and down my side street. Once I hit the bigger street, I had to get out, unlock the wheel hubs and shift to regular 4WD. But then it would start to snow and accumulate. I’d hit a thick spot and have to pull over so I could lock the hubs again for 4WD LOW to get by. Or I’d get into the parking lot and get stuck – and have to change those hubs.

I’d never had to do this before! After a few days, I got frustrated. By day five I was gunning it to get over bumps and sliding backwards into my friend’s garage at Squaw (no damage, Les) just to avoid having to get out and lock the hubs for 20 feet of forward progress. I even got stuck going up the hill to Tahoe Donner in 4WD one night, sliding backwards down the road. I told myself I didn’t want to get out in minus 5 degree weather to lock the hubs. Luckily a nice policeman drove up behind me, got out and locked my wheel hubs for me. I made it home just fine.

I was stuck in all sorts of ruts!

Why was I so resistant to those darned hubs? It takes 30 seconds and makes it easy to go anywhere I want to go. There were lots of folks who would have loved the chance to drive safely in all that snow. They were parked in snow drifts or halfway to the top of a hill. They’d get out to switch their hubs I bet! Yet I’d have done anything to stay in that truck and drive – instead of crawling in/out to lock/unlock those hubs.

I’m thinking it was the lack of control. Getting stuck in that snow in my 6-ton hauling pick-em-up truck made me feel so powerless. I’d get out and lock those hubs, then get back in and have this sick feeling as I started forward again – waiting to slide backwards because sometimes even 4WD LOW didn’t work.

Most of the time with those hubs locked – I was going anywhere I wanted. But it was only most of the time. I had to have four guys push me out of a dip at my fave ski store one night. 4WD Low wouldn’t dig me out of the deep snow. I was scared all the way home of getting stuck yet again.

Most of us don’t like change because it makes us powerless. I found myself resisting change – even something as simple as changing my hubs. Not because of the weather. It was because of how powerless I felt. That got me thinking.

If I avoid a change as simple as that – what will we do to avoid big changes?

The number one reason why most businesses (small and large) are failing today is:

They did not recognize the need for a transition nor did they manage the transition effectively.

See, business leaders are told all the time that they need to change but it goes in one ear and out the other. And, if by some chance the advice soaks in, most business leaders do not know where to get started and how to make the changes that will ultimately impact their bottom line revenue growth.

Why You as a Business Leader Must Embrace & Manage Transitions

If only the business environment were stable. It’s not and that is the reality of being in business today. The reasons change with every downturn in the business cycle, but the consequences stay the same. A business must adjust and adapt to survive – no matter the economy. This means, you must know how to manage the transition effectively.

They need to understand and be responsive to changes in the marketplace. This requires strong leadership, a strategic plan and good information about the marketplace.

While leadership, strategic planning and good market based information are important, they are only a component of business success. We have known companies with charismatic leaders who had a detailed strategic plan supported by very good market information – yet they failed. And, they failed because they thought…

* Change is about having a plan
* Change is about saying you are going to change
* Change is about collecting information.
* Change is about one leader looking to make a difference.

Well, we have news for you. That’s not what change is about!

What Change Should Mean to Your Organization

Real change is about doing something about it. It’s not the failure to identify change that hurts organizations. It’s the failure to implement change that hurts organizations. And implementing change is a transition.

The difference between change and transition is like the difference between reducing inventory and having a well-managed supply chain process. Reducing inventory will free cash and improve the balance sheet (inventory reduction represents a change). Keeping the inventory low through an effective supply chain process (the transition) will result in sustained benefits to the organization. It is much more difficult to transition than it is to change.

An Example of a Poorly Managed Transition – And What You Should Do Instead

A hospital executive team in the southeast was struggling with implementing its strategic vision. They did an excellent job in identifying the vision, communicating it to the hospital staff and getting Board support. The executive team was committed to the vision. A year after the vision was rolled-out, little progress had been made and the Board expressed serious concern.

Why?

Because, making pronouncements about the need to change and how changes will create results did nothing for this health care organization. There was no follow-through! The hospital in the southeast’s executive team went back to their daily activities shortly after the plan was announced.

There is a saying that goes like this: “When you get tired of talking to your staff about what needs to be done in the organization, saying the same thing over and over again until you can’t stand saying it anymore, that’s when the staff begins to hear you and take you seriously.”

This is a classic example of a transition. We had one client who said to us that he did not do what his boss asked him to do until he was asked at least three times. Then he knew the boss was probably serious.

Silly?

Not really.

An isolated example?

Hardly.

We don’t resist change as much as we are uncertain about what’s going to happen during the transition. Every employee, and we truly mean every employee, wants to know “what’s in it for me” if we change. Plans don’t answer that question. Most employees don’t care about shareholder value. Most don’t even understand it. They care about themselves and what’s going to happen to them.

More Proof Demonstrating the Need for Business Leaders to Go Beyond Business Strategy

A midsize publicly traded information technology consulting company was adversely affected by the downturn in the technology market. The new President assembled the senior management team and after a three day planning session, he rolled out a new strategic direction for the company. The plan was to migrate away from a reliance on information technology consulting and move to re-engineering, supply chain process improvement and financial services such as accounts receivable reduction. Everyone left the room agreeing with the new direction for the company. Yet, nothing and we mean nothing happened after the meeting. The senior managers went back to their offices and continued to manage the technology business. There was no transition plan.

Remember: Strategy Points Your Organization in a Direction — Managing the Transition Gets You and Your Organization There

It’s important to look beyond strategy when you are dealing with a business downturn or a new opportunity. Strategy will help you identify the direction you should move in. But, if you want to move your organization in that direction then you must deal with employee concerns and uncertainties. You must adjust as you move along the process. This all involves managing the transition.