The roots of change management have been traced back to the beginning of the last century when anthropologist Arnold Van Gennep began documenting rites of passage all over the world.
He identified three core stages:
- Separating from the present
- Going through change; and
- Establishing a future state.
Social scientists influenced much of the early thinking around change management. The well-known comparison between people who experience grief and those facing change at work was first proposed in the 1960s.
By the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, change management became more recognised as a business discipline. It gained new champions, methodologies, structures, and a whole stack of clichés and jargon.
Increasingly the people side of change, such as behaviours, culture, leadership and motivation, was seen as the preserve of HR. This left executives to focus on results, strategy, objectives, and metrics.
More than a decade ago, a Harvard Business Review article, The Hard Side of Change Management, considered whether change management had become too focused on its softer aspects to the detriment of business results.
The article proposed a structure based on Duration, Integrity, Commitment and Effort (DICE) to judge success in the hard side of change management.
In this blog, we consider whether these are still relevant today. We then introduce our research into change management and its success factors for comparison.
Dice or No Dice?
DURATION
The longer a project goes on, the more stakeholders tend to believe it’s going off track and likely to fail. Research conducted for the HBR article showed that actually, this was not the case. More important are frequent project reviews to track execution, identify gaps and spot new risks in order to ensure better outcomes.
Our research concluded that an agile approach, focused on project objectives delivered in short sprints, is the most effective approach. The risk is that a waterfall approach with a pre-determined project end date will not give change a chance when so much knowledge can be gained through each cycle.
INTEGRITY
The HBR article then discusses performance integrity, i.e., ensuring that the best quality project team is in place and can be relied on to execute successfully.
We would, again, concur. If the change is a priority then the organisation must ensure star performers are allowed to focus on it. Where a relevant skills gap is identified, sourcing external talent or expertise becomes a priority. Failure to focus on this and be honest about skills gaps in the organisation reduces the likelihood of success from the outset.
COMMITMENT
Where leaders are clear, consistent and committed to their vision of change, they can expect a similar commitment from staff. However, the HBR article describes how senior management often underestimates its ability to gain support through effective communication. The ‘hard’ part is to make sure that it is clear ‘straight talk’ that does not water down difficult decisions or leave ambiguities. Otherwise, staff are likely to fill in gaps, notice inconsistency and become less trustful.
Our research found that commitment and communication skills are essential for leaders to build trust in their vision, rather than relying on positional power. But this doesn’t mean that conversations are ‘soft’ when critical decisions need to be communicated.
EFFORT
Change inevitably involves removing people from their day-to-day activities to focus on the project. However, delivering results in the short term cannot be put on hold if the brighter future is to be achieved.
We find organisations struggle to divide their time to properly evaluate the past and prepare for a better future when they feel pressure to focus on the present. Discipline is needed to ensure that effort is distributed effectively and supplemented where necessary. Change requires investment if you want it to succeed.
Add some FLARE to your DICE
So it’s hard to disagree with the principles of DICE. Our own research into successful change management found there is no single improvement that can be made to ensure change success. We do, however, propose a practical checklist of ways in which you can keep your project on track, including:
- FOCUS – Define and measure success based on the outcome you want to achieve.
- LEADERSHIP – Be clear on how much change leadership you have in the firm and get the mix right.
- AGILITY – anticipate changes in the environment, keeping team membership fluid as the project demands.
- RIGOUR – Make sure the transformation leadership team fully understands the strategy.
- ENGAGEMENT – analyse impact, measure and continuously improve.
These ideas are discussed in more detail in our research report – Business Transformation – Why do we keep on getting it wrong?
- Designing and implementing HRIS with the gig economy in mind - 29 September 2021
- Making change happen in the public sector - 29 September 2021
- Leaders need to raise their DQ - 29 September 2021