Only 41% of organizational changes are successful
41% of changes are successful? At least that is what IBM says. How do they know? They carried out a major survey of 1500 change leaders and produced a report, which you can get here.
Among the highlights:
Most CEOs consider themselves and their organizations to be executing change poorly
Achieving project success does not hinge primarily on technology – instead, success depends largely on people.
Nothing new there, really. But IBM then say
Four common factors helped these practitioners address their greatest project challenges and when used in combination, they provide a synergistic benefit that was even greater than the sum of their individual impacts.
So what are the four factors? According to IBM they are
- Real Insights, Real Actions. Strive for a full, realistic awareness and understanding of the upcoming challenges and complexities, then follow with actions to address them.
- Solid Methods, Solid Benefits. Use a systematic approach to change is focused on outcomes and closely aligned with formal project management methodology.
- Better Skills, Better Change. Leverage resources appropriately to demonstrate top management
sponsorship, assign dedicated change managers and empower employees to enact change. - Right Investment, Right Impact. Allocate the right amount for change management by understanding which types of investments can offer the best returns, in terms of greater project success.
Again, not much new. But remember – successful change management does not ignore the basics.
Business English Resource
These days, a lot of the world talks in English when they are doing business.Are you involved with companies outside Germany? Or do you deal with parts of your own company where they speak English?
Change management programmes often have international components where the change manager needs to speak English. How good is your business English?
FT Deutschland has a good page with material here.
Theory and Organizational Change II
It is possible to identify two general conceptualisations of ‘organizational change’ that arise from the vast literature on the subject. First, there is a conceptualisation that emphasises that change is:
“an empirical observation of difference in form, quality, or state over time in an organizational entity. The entity may be an individual’s job, a work group, an organizational strategy, a program, a product, or the overall organization” (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995: 512).
On the other hand, there is a view like that of Francis and Sinclair (2003: 689), who describe organizational change as
“ongoing process of social construction that comprises spiral patterns of discursive change and restructuring of collective meanings”.
There are, then, two different conceptualisations of ‘organizational change’. First, change is viewed in organization theory from two perspectives – as a difference in state, and as a process. Second, organizations are also viewed from two perspectives – as empirical objects, and as sets of relationships. Accordingly, one approach in the change literature emphasises that organizational change is a difference in state of empirical objects and mainly tackles the questions “Why should an organization change?” and “How should an organization change?” The literature that takes this approach may be termed prescriptive in that it provides guidelines for change. A second approach assumes that change is a process inside a set of relationships and is most interested in the questions “Why does an organization change?” and “How does an organization change?” This body of literature may be termed descriptive because it is interested in showing how change happens.
As is so often the case, one needs to be able to combine both views to be able to understand change. To try to manage change, we need to know both why an organization should change and how it should change.
References
Francis, H. & Sinclair, J. 2003. A Processual Analysis of HRM-Based Change. Organization, 10(4): 685-706.
Van de Ven, A. H. & Poole, M. S. 1995. Explaining Development and Change in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 510-540.
Communicating and change management
‘Facetime’, ‘fokussieren’ and many more…
It’s normal that each area of life has its own specific terms. The Financial Times Deutschland collected some of the words and phrases that are less meaningful than others. They are the kind of words that you can use in meetings if you want to sound as if you know what you are talking about.
But beware – these particular words and phrases are empty of meaning!
More seriously, it has been shown that managers who rely too much on buzzwords like these are less well regarded than people who use clear and concise language.
It’s not only what you say, it’s the way you say it.
Managing change in the business environment
Is there an economic downturn? Either way, a change in the business environment is one of the prime causes of organizational change. At Turris Consulting, we say that the business environment is part of the external context of change. (Click here to read more.)
Of course, smart organizations are very aware of what is going on in their business world. In this Wall Street Journal article – In Chaos Lies Opportunity – the authors argue that companies can do well even in difficult times if they understand the environment.
For most industries, the optimal time to hit the brakes and downshift was months ago. The questions to be asking now are: Where is the apex of the curve, and how hard should we accelerate to take advantage of competitor mistakes? Who is in trouble and dumping valuable assets in order to survive? Can we add great people who are now available?
What does this mean in terms of organizational change management? It means that good managers scan the outer context of change, and then work out what they need to change within their company so that the company can do well even in in difficult times.
Change management books
Just in time for Christmas – here are some books which I have found to be useful for change management in several ways.
Images of Organization by Gareth Morgan shows how the ways in which we view organizations and the metaphors we use affect how we manage. The other books contain a range of insights into the organization change process.
Caldwell’s work (Agency and Change) is more theoretical. It looks at how the tension between agency and structure to investigate how people as change agents can affect the way change initiatives in their organization progress.
Understanding Organizational Change by Dawson is aimed at MBA students. Nevertheless, it should be read by people in organizations because of the way it emphasises taking a view of change at all levels of the organiztion.
Finally, the Handbuch Change-Management has been written by some prominent German experts. It provides a comprehensive view of change and change management.
Cisco change management video
Here is a video from Cisco about change. It is a bit superficial, but makes some important points about planning and leadership.
The Contexts of Organizational Change
Organizations do not exist in a vacuum. The model of organizational change that I developed specifically takes account of what I call the external context. This includes – but is not limited to – developments that directly affect the financial aspects of business.
As the outer context changes, my model suggests that this then has an affect on any change processes that are taking place in an organization. The Euro is now losingvalue against the dollar.
Let’s assume that your organization is going through some change initiatives that require money (and they all do). How are you going to manage that? Will you change the scope of the change? Carry on anyway? One thing is certain – the change you began with will not be the same change that you end with.
