CHAPTER 13

The process of large-scale change

This is a compelling headline, usually attributed to the McKinsey & Company consulting firm almost 20 years ago, although there have been many similar claims since. Unfortunately, this statistic seems to have been repeated over the years, with little significant improvement. Respected industry commentators such as Harvard Business Review and Forbes magazine continue to reinforce the claim that large-scale change still isn’t delivering the kind of value that it was put in place to achieve.

So why is this the case? John Kotter (1995) is a well-known expert on organizational change and transformation. He believes that many issues are caused by leaders and managers treating the change as an event rather than a process with several defined stages. This means that rushing a stage or even skipping one altogether is likely to reduce momentum or even derail the change.

In my experience, all too often a ‘change initiative’ involves little more than a couple of emails from senior managers, resulting in little or no effective change. When we understand the process of change as explained by Kotter, it clarifies the follow-up activities that are needed to actually deliver change.

Before we move on to Kotter’s model, it is worth taking a few steps back to understand the work of psychologist Kurt Lewin (1951; see Figure 13.1). He is particularly well known for the concepts of ‘force field analysis’, explained below, and his change theory, a three-step approach to change explained using the terms ‘unfreeze’, ‘change’ and ‘refreeze’. Essentially, Lewin’s theory sets the scene for change to be considered a process rather than an event, because in order to make a change we have to first ‘unfreeze’ the status quo, make the actual ‘change’ and then reset or ‘refreeze’ the new way of doing things. If we don’t complete this final refreezing stage then it is human nature to swing back to the old status quo.

Figure 13.1 Lewin’s change theory

Explaining why change fails

Anecdotally, these three stages are also particularly helpful in explaining why change fails, because it is often at a transition stage in this three-step model that change becomes derailed. Not only that – just like the McKinsey quote earlier, these problems are usually caused by people issues.

If we think for a moment about changes that we have been involved in that have failed or haven’t been entirely successful in our organizations, it would be surprising if we were not thinking of commonly raised issues such as resistance to the new way of doing things, lack of sponsorship or resistance to buy-in. Other people-related reasons why change fails that regularly come up are:

• lack of buy-in/resistance to change

• lack of sponsorship/role-modelling

• lack of communication

• lack of sense of urgency

• lack of clear vision

• lack of impetus/follow-through

• lack of resources

So, what can we do about these blockers to change? Lewin’s ‘force field analysis’ illustrates the fact that there are both driving and resisting forces in any situation that result in the current status quo. These forces could be people, processes or even habits or thoughts. Therefore, we will only be successful in achieving change if we have more driving forces than resisting ones. This may require creating additional driving forces such as communicating the change better, creating a clearer vision of the future, or by removing the key resistors, e.g., persuading people of the benefits of the change so that they become drivers rather than resistors.

This model is relevant for both individuals and organizations and, as can be seen in the example in Figures 13.2 and 13.3, the person in question is not going to achieve their current goal of being the perfect weight because the drivers and resistors are balancing out. They will be stuck with the status quo unless they can increase the driving forces and address the resistors. Dieting is a really simple but effective example because it also makes the point that you need to make permanent changes to your drivers or resistors – i.e., habit changes around eating – if you are not going to slip back to your old weight once the initial push for change is over. Of course, organizations are exactly the same; we may make a temporary change but the momentum of driving forces must be maintained long enough for new habits to be created if the change is to stick.

Think about a change in your organization. What are the drivers and resistors? This will help you come up with a strategy of who and what needs to be addressed if the change is to be successful.

Figure 13.2 Lewin’s force field analysis

Figure 13.3 Lewin’s force field analysis

So, both of Lewin’s models of force field analysis and change theory provide a nice foundation for making change. However, it is John Kotter’s eight-step process of change that really spells out the practical steps of making organizational change stick. This model was developed as a result of analysis carried out as part of his consulting practice with many different organizations that had gone through change. He converted this research into the well-known eight-step model that has been updated a few times over the years. This model is invaluable for both planning change and diagnosing why and where change has failed.

Kotter’s eight-step process for change

This model outlines the different stages of the process.

Establish a sense of urgency

We may have heard or even used the term ‘burning platform’ to create an urgent reason for change. This powerful but unpleasant metaphor apparently stems from the Piper Alpha oil rig fire in 1988. Of course, very few of us would want to jump off an oil rig into the sea and would certainly prevaricate if there were no sense of urgency. However, if the oil rig platform were on fire then the decision is made for us; our lives are at stake so, of course, we will jump. Clearly, we don’t want to push people into life-or-death situations in order to make change happen. However, it is a powerful concept – that establishing urgency around either moving away from danger (fire, in this case) or towards a positive future of safety (a lifeboat, in this case) will make change happen. The idea is that people will make even undesirable changes if they feel that the pain of staying the same is greater (remember the Change Equation discussed in Chapter 2).

We know that people are motivated towards positive outcomes and away from pain, and some of us are motivated more by one of these factors than the other. So, for us to motivate people to ‘want’ to change, we must consider the ‘towards motivators’, i.e., a positive future, and the ‘dangers’ of staying the same, in order to create a sense of urgency.

Form a powerful guiding coalition

The second stage of change is forming a powerful guiding coalition. This is likely to be our Change Team: a group of people who are going to work together to see the change through. We are at the stage of ‘unfreezing’ the organization now, so we should include senior sponsors as well as Change Agents or ‘doers’ at this stage. There are two points to note here; the first one is that the people in the guiding coalition do not have to remain the same throughout the change process; in fact, it may be advantageous to bring in different personalities and skills later. Second, we are likely to need more than one Change Team during large-scale change. So, we may start with a smaller steering group to define, plan and lead the change, and then expand this by engaging other champions or Change Teams who may be closer to the intended change and can ensure that any suggested plans are achievable.

Sometimes business change is decided behind ‘closed doors’ for good reasons – during an acquisition or restructuring, for example. However, for such change to be successful, it is likely that additional Change Agents will need to be brought in too, at some point, to help manage or implement the change. Unfortunately, system change in particular can be fraught with issues, if those who proposed it are not connected with the realities of implementing it within a specific time frame. This means that we would be wise to bring people in at the planning stage who have relevant specialist knowledge, even if they must be trusted to maintain confidentiality.

Create a compelling vision

Regardless of what the actual drivers of change are, this is where it is important for the Change Team to consider what the ‘change story’ is. It is likely to be connected to the burning platform concept outlined earlier but it generally needs to be positive, to motivate people towards a better future. People need to understand why the ‘shiny new way’ of doing things will be better than the current position. The vision needs to work on different levels or be translated into relevant motivators for different audiences at different levels within the organization. For example, shareholders may be motivated by share price but for employees job security or opportunities for development are likely to be more compelling as a future vision. This is about getting everyone involved in delivering the change ‘on message’ and it is worth considering what the likely questions and objections will be. This allows the guiding coalition to respond consistently and appropriately in line with the future vision.

Communicate the change

This is where the change starts to become real as we communicate in order to initiate it on a wider scale. This is one of the transition points between ‘unfreezing’ and ‘changing’ the organization and experience shows it is one of the first places that change frequently fails. Reasons for failure are plenty, including poor preparation during steps one to three, or people falling into the trap of considering change to be an event rather than a process, where simply telling people to change is considered enough. Add into the equation Kotter’s argument that we need to communicate change ten times more than we think we need to, and it’s easy to see why change commonly fails at this stage.

It is also important to consider that communication should be a two-way process. It is not enough to simply dictate change or expect it to happen as a result of a series of emails. As we know, with most change, people go through a series of emotions, which is where resistance commonly arises from. Communicating change effectively includes listening and responding to people’s concerns and helping them to buy in and deal with any associated emotions around the change. Communication of change should take a variety of forms, including written and face-to-face, and it should use a variety of media to increase the chances of being received by all concerned. More on this point later.

Remove obstacles

This is where we need to start getting our hands dirty, and the success of this stage will be dependent on how well the change was planned in the first place. If we managed to build the right skills into the guiding coalition then their expertise will be highly relevant. Ideally, they will have already identified blockers that need addressing – remember the resistors in the force field analysis (see Figures 13.2 and 13.3)? This stage is all about getting rid of the obstacles that are pushing against the new way. Obstacles could be systems, structures or attitudes and behaviours. Addressing each will require different approaches and may take time. If we are introducing a new system, an obstacle may be the fact that people don’t want to remember multiple passwords. A solution like single sign-on or password vault software may address this and needs consideration as part of the change. If the issue is around attitudes or behaviours then we need to talk to people to understand their objections and look to address them.

Create short-term wins

We are now moving back up the Change Curve into the refreeze section, and into another key transition where change can succeed or fail. Often, changes never even get to this stage – or, worse, a new change comes along, putting in place a new Change Curve that can result in worse overall performance, rather than better.

Figure 13.4 The declining effects of successive change

Looking for short-term wins and communicating these allows us to promote the success of the change programme. This is vital for numerous reasons; first, it motivates and recognizes those early adopters. Second, it clearly signals to those in denial that the change is real, and that it is here to stay. It is also important to start to demonstrate some of the benefits of the change and to help make the new way of doing things habitual.

Examples of quick wins could be announcing that 95% of staff have completed the required compliance e-learning by the deadline using the new learning management system (LMS), or in the case of a business merger we might announce the first business deal as a new commercial entity. This is a time for publicly recognizing those who have got on board with the change and privately nudging those who haven’t.

This is also the time to consider bringing some new blood into your Change Team. Personalities suited to initiating change are rarely good at embedding it in detail. Implementing change is a different skill set to starting change. In Chapter 10 we talked about using Belbin’s team roles when building the Change Team. We might select ‘resource investigator’ and ‘shaper’ types at the start of change but then move to ‘implementers’ and ‘completer finishers’ to push things through. Getting the right personalities in place at each stage of change maximizes our chances of driving things through into a ‘refreeze’ and ensuring value is derived from our change.

Consolidate improvements

Many organizations who go through mergers are held back by the legacy systems and processes that continually remind people of the old way. An example might be people who are still on old terms and conditions, making it difficult to embed a new recruitment policy, or old signage or headed paper. If the improvements are not consolidated it is incredibly hard to make sustained progress. The problem is sometimes that these aspects are overlooked; it almost resembles the Pareto principle – even though 80% of the change has been delivered, this last 20% of consolidation can make 80% of the difference in results.

You could see this like a succession of mini changes that have to be made to keep on consolidating the new way. It is important that the Change Team has the focus and enthusiasm to drive things through to completion at this stage.

Institutionalize the change

The final step, in Kotter’s terms, is ‘institutionalizing the new approach’, although perhaps this sounds a bit dated. If we consider this to mean embedding the change, it is about ensuring all systems and processes are aligned with the new way of being. It is essentially building on step seven and taking it to completion. This is about the new way of becoming ‘the way we do things around here’. In the case of a new recognition or benefits system, it might include new starters to the organization being inducted in the use of this as a cultural norm. It is only at this stage that we start to feel the benefits that we originally signed up to.

How many of the eight stages do you recognize in your organization? Overlaying Lewin’s unfreeze-change-refreeze model onto Kotter’s eight steps helps us to better understand the danger points where change breaks down. By understanding and sharing with others that change is a process not an event, we can appreciate the importance of seeing the change through to completion in order to reap the desired benefits. We need to be realistic about the requirements and challenges of each stage as well as the time involved in delivering large-scale change. If we follow Kotter’s eight-step process consistently and enlist the different skills of our Change League as required, it is easy to see how we could gain greater, faster value from change in our organizations.

Quick recap on the process of large-scale change • To make change last it is important to ‘refreeze’ before moving onto the next change. • We need more driving forces than resisting forces to create momentum for change. • Communicating change does not mean it will actually happen. • Many changes fail because steps 6–8 of Kotter’s process are overlooked. • It may be worth refreshing the Change Team towards the end of the process.

Online toolkit The following free change resources can be downloaded via: www.changesuperhero.com • Kotter case study PowerPoint