Protocols of Change Management [Guest Article]Learn Your Protocols Custom Search Change Management - "Learn Your Protocols" - By Mark Eaton IntroductionStudies have shown that large numbers of organisations aim to introduce some form of structured change or improvement programme each year (in some studies this can be as high as 60-70% of all organisations), but few of these programmes will achieve results that are sustainable. Many of these programmes invested in by organisations across a wide range of sectors will actually end up costing more than they deliver in the way of improvements, although they may appear for a short time to have delivered some improvement or even provide a ‘sticking plaster’ temporary solution to a key organizational issue. Our own research (originally based on 120 manufacturing companies but now tested on the NHS and Service Sector) shows that some 87% of organisations will fail to maintain the results of their change programme for more than 6-12 months after the improvements are implemented. This has been further supported by research undertaken by a range of organisations, including Henley Management College who are quoted as saying that ‘some 70% (or more) of businesses implementing change will fail to achieve sustainable results’, which they estimate costs the UK economy alone some $45bn per year. So What Is Sustainable Change?Well, we would define sustainable change as that that which affected not only the process (which can easily and quickly slip back to the ‘way things were done before’) but to behavioural change – which is where the organisation moves from one platform of performance to a higher level by implementing a planned programme that is subscribed to and adopted by all stakeholders and which becomes irreversibly ingrained into the fabric of the organisation. Sadly, whereas a process can be changed through a single ‘Ram Raid’ (Lean Event, Kaizen Breakthrough, Rapid Improvement Event etc), behaviours take much longer to change, indeed if they ever change, and often, after the excitement of an ‘end of Rapid Improvement Event celebration’ has subsided, management focus moves onto the next issue leading to gradual (or rapid) reversal of the benefits gained. We call this desirable behavioural change ‘2nd Order Change’, where 1st Order Change is a change of process and 2nd Order Change is a change of behaviour. To put this into a familiar context, when the wearing of seatbelts was introduced (this being a 1st Order Change in the process), large numbers of people would continue to get into their vehicle and forget to follow the new process. However, the Government continued to communicate about the change in the process (the need to wear seatbelts), the Police enforced it, the press reported it, people appeared in court because of it, cars were designed to support it (my own bleeps if I don’t fit my seatbelt), learners drivers had it drummed into them – and now the majority of people get into their car and do not even think about it as they fit their seatbelt. In fact, not fitting the seatbelt feels ‘wrong’, like wearing the wrong pair of shoes – and this shows that we have reached 2nd Order or Sustainable Change. Most of the work to make change sustainable occurs AFTER the process has been changed and after the elation of improvement has been achieved. Often this is also the time that senior management support and focus moves on (or the consultants leave) and the team and managers are left without the support to enable them to debug the new process they have created. As the team encounters problems, or they forget to do things (like fitting a seatbelt), and because there is no reminder process (such as on-going communication, management support or even further improvement activity) the behaviours of the team revert to those that they displayed in the way things were done before. Plans – failing to plan or manage the plan effectivelyThis is a broad category and includes organisations who look at change in isolation of the impact the change will have on other parts of the organisation, or the time or budget commitments they might need to make. In addition, failing to allocate sufficient resource to manage the plan effectively is also a reason for failure as is a failure to manage the plan effectively and to drive it forward (although this latter point overlaps with the Leadership element). Some of the comments made by people describing problems they had with their change programme that fall into the ‘Plans’ element of PROTOCOLS includes: “There were conflicting plans, none of which were integrated” Reactions – inappropriate responses exhibited by staff any levelsIndividuals who feel that change is optional will try to revert to the old way of doing things as it is comfortable and familiar. This feeling of change being ‘optional’ happens more frequently than it should, sometimes inadvertently because managers are not sure about what will happen during the change and will create a ‘get out’ to enable them to revert to a known system even though it is inefficient. Employees at all levels need to feel they are involved in the change process and failure to act inclusively results in employees feeling disaffected about the change and looking for reasons to make the change fail. Again, this can be accentuated by an inability within the organisation to communicate the urgency for the change or improvement. Lastly, under this element, a failure to establish a clear journey within the minds of the individuals can result in them prematurely believing they have attained the goal, or becoming distressed by the journey they need to undertake. Phrases that people use to describe adverse reactions as the cause of failure in their organisation include: “There was a real reluctance to change from certain individuals and managers” Ownership – problems with people taking responsibility for the new systemEmployees who have not been part of the change process will not only have adverse reactions to the change but may also fail to take ownership for it. A lack of understanding of the linkage between organizational and individual needs often leads people to disconnect from the change process and only manage the new way of doing things reluctantly. Ownership can also occur higher up an organisation with directors not directly involved in the change deliberately distancing themselves from the change process – either through fear of the unknown or through a desire to avoid extra work or even to jostle for a better position on the board. Phrases that emphasise that an organisation is struggling to gain ownership from their staff at any or all levels include: “Our team is stuck in a ‘hamster wheel’ claiming to be too busy to lead the new system” Training – insufficient, inappropriate or misaligned trainingTraining is a contentious issue. Too much training before changes occur and the organisation stagnates, too little and the business runs the risk that individuals only have a superficial knowledge about the journey they are about to make or the tools they should use when they encounter unusual situations. Another failing that can be classified under the training element is a failure to identify and develop ‘Change Agents’ who will lead the change and act as frontline advocates of the change process. These Change Agents act as the first line sales team for the change process – something that impacts on both staff reactions and their ownership of the new processes. Statements that indicate that organisations need to focus on their training include: “We moved straight to action and no-one had a single idea about how to improve” Operation (of the change) – problems with the way change is deliveredThis element covers a range of issues that can go wrong with the way that change is delivered within the organisation. This can include such things as choosing the wrong tools, applying them in the wrong way, not looking at the impact of the improvement of one process on linked processes or implementing measures that drive the wrong behaviour. The problem with the operation is extrapolated by external consultancies or internal managers that have a ‘product’ that they apply to all situations, whether or not that is the best tool or process, or a lack of expertise that does not recognize when an incorrect path has been chosen. The phrases that would be heard if an organisation was struggling to sustain change due to the way they were operating the overall change process include: “The process is too complex for our organisation” Communications – failing to communicate effectivelyNot everyone learns in the same way. Some prefer to hear somebody speak to them, some to read what they have written and others prefer to be involved in discussion groups. Many organisations approach communication through a single media (often a cascade team briefing) which does not take into account different learning styles. Also, the communication needs to be relevant, upbeat and factual, and must be articulated in a way that people understand. Complex reports of different measures which mean little to front line staff have little impact (obviously), and recognizing successes also has the effect of reducing morale and disconnecting people from the change process. Of course, message attenuation through the organisation also has a major impact. Whilst the board may be enthusiastic for the change, as the message is propagated through the organisation by managers who are less enthusiastic, the message will also change – if not in content then in the way it is received – it will become less important, less believable, less exciting and more optional. Phrases that indicate a change process is failing due to problems in their communication processes include: “I did not feel what I was being told made any sense to me” On-Boarding – failing to induct new people effectively into the changed systemOver time new people will be brought into the changed system, either from the outside or from internal transfers. Problems with residual cultural resistance (covered under ‘Reactions’ above), coupled with poor messages received during the induction process, means that people can become inducted into the old way of doing or thinking – meaning that the improvement will degrade over time. This is an often forgotten element of the improvement process – something which even those people are our research workshops failed to point out and initially we thought we had got this element wrong, until we explained what it meant to people and they all said that they had seen this occurring but had genuinely not realized the impact of poor induction on long-term success because the impact was seen over such a long period. Phrases that indicate poor on-boarding may include: “No one we seemed to get in had any different ideas to the people we already had”“The new people quickly adopted the old ways of doing things – like it was natural for them”“We got the best people in but they quickly became demoralized” Leadership – problems with providing direction or vision, or inconsistent leadershipThe most obvious element in the mix of things that leads to unsustainable change are problems with leadership and this generally elicited the most responses. Leadership issues often start before the change process begins in the failure to create the vision for people to aspire too, or in a lack of real commitment from the senior team to the change – maybe with only one or two members actively supporting the change and the rest paying lip service. Inconsistencies in the way that leaders communicate with different groups create eddies of dissent from those who are seeking the process to fail. During the change process, leaders are often called upon to deal with road-blocks or snipers and failure to do so will rapidly reduce the impact of the change process, or they could even set the targets too low. After the change process, leaders can quickly lose interest and shift onto new problems or even inadvertently convert the organisation back to the old way of doing things – for example, after introducing a new scheduling system that shortens the lead-time significantly, continuing to push individual orders that bump over the new system. The phrases that indicate that the leadership element of the change process is a problem include: “When it all kicked off, they (the leaders) were nowhere to be seen” Systems – misalignment in the organisation’s supporting infrastructureWhen change occurs, not only do the organisational processes change but the supporting systems need to change too. This may affect HR Policies, Performance Bonuses, Business Measures, Roles and Job Descriptions. However, less than half of organisations who address significant change look at the supporting systems, creating a ‘pull’ to return to the old way that is almost undeniable – and a rigid organisation that is incapable of changing. Phrases that emphasise that there are problems with the organisational systems include: “We need someone to look at this as a prime function rather than ad-hoc” So What Does It All Mean? Well, as more organisations recognize that they are investing or have invested in change that has failed to become embedded in the organisation they are looking at different approaches that will make their investment in change more beneficial to their organisation. PROTOCOLS is a useful model for assisting organisations to plan for change, or to recover from a stalled change process. Maybe the best way to achieve success is to ‘Learn Your PROTOCOLS’? This article was first published by the IOM and was co-written by Mark Eaton and Tim Franklin. Mark Eaton MSc MBA CEng – Mark works with a wide range of Healthcare, Manufacturing and Public Organisations to help them get the best results from their improvement programmes (Lean, Six Sigma, Concurrent Design etc). Contact Mark via markeaton@amnis-uk.com or ring +44 (0) 7841 464916. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Mark_Eaton |