“A key reason implementation fails is that practicing executives, managers and supervisors don’t have … a good understanding of the multiple factors that must be addressed, often simultaneously, for implementation to work.” [Fevzi Okumus]

Change management is a messy business full of complexity and many things that can and usually do go wrong. This is reflected in the 70% failure rate of all change initiatives.

Behind the many things that can and do go wrong are a number of related factors:

# Overemphasis on process instead of people

# Failure to fully account for the impact of change on those most affected by it

# Lack of a process to directly address the human aspects of change

# Lack of clarity and lack of communication

# The lack of a language and contextual framework to articulate and manage the necessary change processes

# Failure to address the energy and emotions associated with change

# Lack of understanding of the difference between “new capabilities” and “benefits gained” [and why it matters]

# Lack of understanding and application of the “business as usual” test to establish whether it is an “incremental change” or a “step change” [and failing to understand why this matters]

Navigating these pitfalls and achieving a successful change initiative requires attention to 3 key domains, namely:

(1) Leadership that directly addresses transitions and the emotional dimension of those affected by change and provides inspirational motivation.

(2) A change model and methodology that covers “the multiple factors that need to be addressed”

(3) Action management that shows and helps people with the details of exactly what is required of them.

Here is a short masterclass for professionals that highlights the key topics within these 3 domains.

Leadership

Change initiatives must be directed and managed. The biggest leadership failure in most change initiatives is that there are none!

What is required is leadership that recognizes the importance of the emotional dimension, and specifically understands the 2 levels of impact of change:

(1) Organizational change – new processes, procedures and structures

(2) Personal transition – emotional and psychological

Most change initiatives employ methods that ignore the emotional dimension of personal transition. Ignoring transition is one of the main causes of change resistance and change failure. Leading your people through this transition is just as important as managing organizational change.

Leadership that is able to address these factors requires high levels of emotional intelligence, which is often not evident in top executives.

So to any business leader reading this, I will say this: “Your level of emotional awareness, and the extent to which you embrace and harness the emotional dimension of your organization, is directly correlated to the success of change and ongoing organizational performance.” .

Culture

Culture can be simply defined as the way people behave within a group context.

Organizational culture is the main determining factor of how an individual will behave within an organizational environment. Culture will take precedence over education, intelligence and common sense

So you can’t make a successful step change [and realise the benefits] without changing your organizational culture

To change the culture you need:

(1) To identify and understand it

(2) A framework and language to communicate it

(3) Tools and processes to change it

Change models and methods

A “good understanding of the multiple factors that need to be addressed” is achieved with a change model and methodology that bridges the gap between a high-level “big picture” strategic vision and successful front-line implementation. There are a number of change models that are popular and frequently used, notably John Kotter’s “8-Step Change Model” and Prosci’s “ADKAR Change Model”. These and other models have great merit and provide a structured approach to managing a change initiative.

The difficulty with these and most established models of change is that they understandably tend to cover one main aspect or dimension of the whole of what is involved. That doesn’t invalidate any specific model or supporting methodology, but it does leave gaps.

The main specific criticism that can be made of most of these models is that they are tactical and project-focused; they are not strategic and they are not holistic and far-reaching enough to fully address the human factors that are the most common causes of failure.

There is currently no change model that sits between the leadership dimension and strategic review process, and the lower level of management and implementation at the project and task level.

Program level implementation

For this reason, I have adapted some of the core concepts and processes of program management, added a preliminary cultural analysis combined with a pre-program review and planning process using my EEMAP© process, and offered it to you in the form of a simple, program-based model designed to bridge the gap between strategy and project.

In short, my program-based model is designed:

# To facilitate the key thought processes that are necessary for a successful change initiative

# To support the leadership processes described by Kotter, Bridges Transition Model and to provide a framework and context for the ADKAR model at the project/task level

It has 5 main objectives:

(1) Bridging the gap between vision and implementation

(2) Ensuring that the “cultural analysis” and “pre-program review and planning process” are carried out

(3) Clarity about how and why things will be different after the change

(4) Identify, assess and mitigate the impacts of the change on all those who will be affected by it.

(5) Ensuring that the intended organizational benefits are realized

Task level implementation

A common mistake many managers make is assuming that because they have told people what they want to happen, then it will happen. It will not!

Although people will listen to what you say when you describe your vision and strategy, and will probably agree with you, on an individual level, most of them cannot translate it into purposeful and productive action.

People are very different in the way they process information, interpret life, and in the way they motivate themselves. This is not because they are stupid, and it does not necessarily mean that they resist your vision and strategy, but it often means that the leap from vision and strategy to practical implementation is too great for them to make, without support.

This means that managing change, at the task level, requires detailed hands-on management. [micro management on occasions] in the details of what to do and how to do it. This is especially necessary during the early stages.

As a change leader, it really is your responsibility not to make assumptions and to “polish” and communicate those actionable steps.

Very often, this simply does not happen. Leaders don’t lead and managers don’t manage. It is assumed that: “they have been told what to do and they will go and do it.” Wrong! There is not supposed to be time and it is not necessary to take the time to translate the ideas to communicate those actionable steps. Wrong again!

It’s up to you to define and communicate those actionable steps and manage your people through the process of implementing and integrating those steps as the new modus operandi.