s2 Flashcards
whats the definition of benefits?
the measurable improvement from change. which is perceived as positive by one or more stakeholders and contributes to organistational objectives
Benefits are the reason that an organisation will invest its time, resources and management attention on a change initiative. All changes use finite organisational resources, and any change that does not deliver some benefit is a waste of resources.
examples of benefits that can be achieved through a change…
benefits can be tangible, such as increasing the organisation’s revenue or decreasing costs.
On the other hand they could be intangible, for example setting out to improve staff morale or our reputation with our customers.
we sometimes also get disbenefits which are defined as
“measurable results that are perceived as negative by one or more stakeholders“.
We should note that it’s the business leaders who are ultimately accountable for
realising the benefits from a change, and not the change manager.
emergent benefits are
those not originally identified but emerge once the change has been implemented. These emergent benefits should trigger lessons for inclusion and estimation in future changes.
to consider the extent to which each element of a change needs to be adopted by different stakeholders, Kelman came up with a useful model. In this model, he distinguishes three levels of adoption, namely,
Compliance, Identification and Internalisation.
Kelman describes identification as where
people understand what the change is about and the consequences of not changing. They are prepared to accept the change without further challenge.
nternalisation takes adoption even further than identification. Internalisation entails stakeholders
fully accepting the change at a personal level, as the new way of doing things.
They would be able to apply their own judgement in the future when faced with novel situations requiring decision-making relating to the change and be in a position to guide others as well.
is helpful to consider the complexity of a change in order to choose a suitable strategy for managing the change.
One tool that can help in this regard is known as VUCA, which is an acronym that stands for
Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity.
The more volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous the context surrounding a change is, the more difficult it is to predict, plan and control the change.
Another tool that is very useful here is David Snowden’s Cynefin model. He called this a sense-making framework and its intention is to help us consider different approaches based on the complexity of the situation.
Cynefin is a Welsh word meaning habitat. The framework looks at the relationship between cause and effect and has four types of relationships.
Steph, can you take us through the different types of relationships please.
No problem Marijne, the relationships can be:
* Simple or obvious – where the relationship between cause and effect is clear and well understood. In this type of change, best practice can be used effectively.
- Complicated – the relationship between cause and effect is knowable but needs careful analysis to understand it well. Good practice is suitable here as there may be several “right” answers and trying to narrow these down to a single “right” answer is not productive.
- Complex – where the relationship between cause and effect is unknown. An experimental approach, supplemented by expert opinions is advisable, and lastly
Chaotic – cause and effect relationships are unknown and volatile. Essentially, crisis management is required here. Instinctual action is needed to try to get out of the immediate danger zone, followed by assessment and then a more considered response.
Marijne:
When we consider change, there are often considered to be two broad categories, namely, planned change, and emergent change.
Planned change is a deliberate choice on the part of an organisation to do something different.
A planned change can be a reaction to external events, such as economic pressures, or linked to a clear strategy for change such as an organisational restructure.
Planned change is likely to be clearly structured as a defined programme or project, and be driven from the top of the organisation.
The second type, emergent change, is more organic than planned change. It would likely have a desired outcome, but the details of how to achieve the outcome would emerge and develop over time.
An emergent change can be supported from the top of the organisation, but it is likely to be more participative in nature rather than formally directed.
It is focused by the sharing of a vision and goals and delivered usually by the empowerment of staff. It also tends to be more experimental in nature, with adjustments being made as the experiments reveal what works and what doesn’t work.
These change types are not mutually exclusive and it is not uncommon to find both within an organisation, although often one of the two predominates.
There is also some connectedness between these types of change, as planned change by one entity may result in some emergent change in another.
please tell us a bit more about systems thinking?
reinforcing loops,
balancing loops
Sure, systems thinking is all about breaking down a large system into smaller parts and considering the interactions and relationships between the parts.
Systems thinking is a way of taking a situation and breaking it down into smaller, interacting elements. It is sometimes described as thinking in circles rather than thinking in straight lines.
These circles can be thought of as reinforcing or balancing loops.
* Reinforcing loops have a positive impact and change managers should encourage them. For instance, when you learn something new, it boosts your confidence, making you want to learn more, which improves your performance, and the cycle continues
- Balancing loops have a negative impact and change managers should look for and interrupt them. For example, procrastination leads to stress, which lowers productivity, making you procrastinate more, and the cycle goes on.
Emergent change depends on the whole organisation being motivated and focused on change and willing to change and be changed. As Leaders what should we do to encourage and nurture emergent change?
Be clear on and accept what we can plan and change and what we can’t. Be aware of our limits and accept them.
Pete
Yes, and we should notice where the energy of people and systems is focused and the outcomes of this focus.
Karen:
We should also talk among the leadership community about what outcomes are desired.
Steph:
Also as a leadership community we should have one voice about the desired outcomes and consistency in the message.
what do we mean by culture
I think it’s a set of rules, values and standards that are shared within a group. They establish a set of normal or acceptable behaviours. Essentially it’s how “we behave around here”.
Steph:
Yes, and you can have cultures at a national, regional, local and organisational level. In fact it’s not uncommon to have a distinct culture at team level within an organisation.
Pete:
Culture sounds like something grown in a dish in a laboratory.
Paul:
That’s an important point, it’s considered that culture cannot be delivered, it is not an output from an activity.
Culture has to develop and therefore if you want it to change or develop culture, it has to be changed slowly by changing the rules or standards and encouraging a new set of acceptable behaviours.
Why else is culture important to us when considering change?
Steph:
If we try to introduce something which is contrary to the current accepted norm then it will fail as it is culturally unacceptable. If we want to do something radical we may have to start to change the culture to make the radical acceptable to the affected group.
Karen:
Understanding the culture of an organisation or even parts of an organisation will help us identify what is a possible change and what currently is not.
In terms of systems and processes, what reinforcing and balancing systems are there?
As a community we should look at enhancing the reinforcing systems and mitigating some of the balancing ones to shift the equilibrium into change mode.
Steph:
And once the organisation starts changing be aware of the direction of change and support the changes that lead towards the desired outcome.
Pete
We need to be clear as we change, on what must be changed and what we may or may not change. What’s non-negotiable and what is.
Steph:
We should also mark and celebrate milestones in the journey.
Karen:
We should monitor the internal and external environment and identify new information that may redefine the direction or outcomes of the change.
To maximise the benefits realised from a change, it is important to develop a value culture.
Managing benefits effectively requires a shift from a delivery culture to a value culture, where the focus is not just about measuring time, cost and quality compliance, but on the value of achieving those things. It is not that we have delivered something, but the value that something generates once it is in use.
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner described culture as being like an onion, it has layers. They identified three layers:
* Surface, which describes artefacts and products
* Deeper, which is norms and values, and
* Deepest, the basic assumptions.
The surface layer covers the things that you see within the organisation that demonstrate how they behave, what is appropriate. The sorts of artefacts and products commonly experienced are office size, the number of windows a certain grade is allowed in their office, what sort of company car is allowed, the amount and sort of expenses that can be claimed.
This is the visible layer of culture and like an iceberg is often only a very small part of what makes up the culture.
The second deeper layer makes up the norms and values of the organisation and provides a set of rules about what is right or wrong. These can be expressed formally in company handbooks or rules or informally in terms of social behaviours.
The deepest layer are the basic assumptions that underpin the norms and values, these are very rarely articulated except as political slogans.
The sorts of assumptions here could be; all staff are equal, greed is good (to quote Gordon Gecko), we value individuals. These assumptions come from the very heart of the organisation, changes to these would be fought unless presented in an appropriate way.
Force field analysis is a simple visual tool that can be used to help understand the current context of the change, by identifying the forces that are driving the change, and the forces that are resisting the change. Once these forces have been identified, the strategy is to increase those forces which drive the change and decrease those that resist.
Lewin developed a technique to illustrate this activity called ‘Force Field Analysis’. Paul, please explain this for us.
When drawing the force field, the first step is to draw two lines, the one on the left represents the current situation, and the one on the right represents the desired state.
To the left of the current state arrows are drawn representing the drivers for change which push to the desired state. These arrows should be labelled to show what the drivers are, for example falling performance or staff dissatisfaction. These arrows all run left to right showing a move towards the desired state and can be drawn proportionately to show their relative strengths.
To the right of the current state, running from right to left to show opposing forces are those forces which are resisting change such as staff inertia and corporate risk appetite. Again these can be shown proportionately to show relative strengths.
Lewin stated that as the current state is a stable environment the driving forces and the resisting forces must be in balance at this point. In order to move from the current state to the desired state we must look at increasing those forces on the left and reducing those on the right of the current state. By displaying the forces and their relative strengths it becomes easier to select the right levers for change in the organisation.
, please could you tell us more about co-design?
Co-design entails using a collaborative approach attempting to involve all stakeholders in a design process. This helps to get multiple viewpoints and perspectives incorporated into a design, and also increases buy-in as stakeholders are more likely to accept something that they played a part in creating.
Co-design can be used in many different situations within a change and the team should be encouraged to look for opportunities to use the approach. Even when certain decisions may already have been made by senior management, or external authorities, there are usually at least some aspects of achieving the desired outcomes that are still open to debate.
Steph, what are the possible implications of using co-design?
Well it depends on how well the technique is implemented.
Done well, co-design leads to richer solutions with greater buy-in from stakeholders.
To achieve this, there has to be:
* A sense of trust amongst the stakeholders
* A feeling of safety in terms of challenging the powers that be, and also
* An openness to considering different, new points of view.
Done poorly, co-design can be expensive and counter-productive, potentially leading to feelings of resentment and cynicism.
Aspects to be careful of include:
* Making sure that evidence or professional advice is not ignored
* Avoiding pressure being placed on stakeholders to accept preconceived solutions, and
* Involving as wide a selection of stakeholders as possible.
ADKAR was developed by Jeffrey Hiatt from Prosci and is made up of five steps, none of which can be avoided.
These are:
* A for Awareness. Stakeholders first need to be aware of the need for the change
- D for Desire. Stakeholders need to buy-in to the change and understand the advantages of achieving the change
- K for Knowledge. Stakeholders need to know what actions are expected and what systems, processes and equipment they will need to use in order to accomplish the change
- The second A is for Ability, which relates to being able to put the knowledge into action. This step can be achieved by providing coaching, training and opportunities to practice the skills required, and lastly
- R stands for Reinforcement, which relates to the sustainability of the change over time. Providing positive recognition for participating in the change is a great way to reward the effort of employees.
It is also important to note when new processes are not being followed and checking to see if any of the ADKAR elements are missing and taking appropriate action to address any gaps.
kotters model 1 -
We will now consider each accelerator and expand on what each means.
Kotter’s first accelerator involves ‘Creating a sense of urgency around a single big opportunity’. This relates to the need for change and its positioning within the organisation. If the stakeholders cannot see the need to change and the need to change now, then the change will not be started. Kotter speaks of the urgency, galvanising the volunteer army and providing strong focus, starting at the top.
‘Building and maintaining a guiding coalition’ is about creating a team whose role is to drive the change through the organisation. The coalition should involve as many people as possible, and Kotter describes the coalition as a “volunteer army”, which operates as a network of many change agents.
Senior leadership may or may not be part of the coalition, but at the very least, they should nurture and support the coalition and treat it as a valuable part of the organisation.
Dan:
The next accelerator is ‘Formulating a strategic vision and developing a set of change initiatives to realise the big opportunity’. The vision should be attainable, desirable and appealing.
‘Communicating the vision and strategy’ is all about creating buy-in and growing the volunteer army. Ideally, the vision should go viral.
The fifth accelerator is ‘Accelerating movement towards the vision’ which is about removing barriers, and empowering the people to take steps towards the vision and solve any issues or problems along the way. This ensures that the change is a widespread event and that difficulties with one aspect do not prevent the whole change moving forward.
the next accelerator ‘Celebrating visible, significant short-term wins’. This encourages the inclusion of quick changes which generate interest, goodwill and therefore commitment to the change in the stakeholder groups. The wins should be obvious, and clearly related to the vision, so that they generate additional momentum and motivation.
The last two accelerators in Kotter’s approach are:
● ‘Never let up. Keep learning from experience and don’t declare victory too soon’, and
● ‘Institutionalising strategic changes in the culture’.
‘Never letting up’ is about ensuring that the changes are implemented, benefits from those changes are measured and confirmed and these are used as a springboard to trigger more changes in the organisation.
This accelerator also emphasises the need for flexibility, as the world will keep evolving and therefore, so must the change. The stakeholders need to keep up the momentum and maintain the sense of urgency.
‘Institutionalising strategic changes’ is about updating systems, processes and behaviours so that the new approaches are bedded into the organisation and the temptation to slip back to the old ways is reduced.
These accelerators were identified by analysing previous change failures, and Kotter suggested that by implementing the eight accelerators, organisations can seek to minimise the likelihood of failure of their change initiatives.
Let’s move on to discuss delivery approaches and the impact that the approach can have on the way change is managed.
There are four main approaches to implementation and each has its own implications for change management.
The four approaches are:
* Big bang
* Phased
* Voluntary adoption, and
* Incremental/iterative.
