It was a done deal. Luis, director of learning and development at Wilab Holdings, mulled over the news that Sheila, the company’s new head of business development, had relayed to him that morning. Wilab, a leader in the specialty foods market, was acquiring JCo. The deal fit with Wilab’s strategy of growing through acquisitions, and it would help Wilab break into organics. Sheila had called the acquisition “opportunistic” and explained that the deal would proceed much faster than usual. JCo had been on the market for a while, and its expected buyer had just dropped out. So Wilab swooped in and made the purchase. The acquisition would be announced in a matter of weeks.
“I’m going to need your help with acquisition integration,” Sheila had explained. “JCo is going to continue to operate as a separate company for a short while. But then it will probably begin using our business processes and technology—our financial tools, the sales management system, procurement processes, our HR system. And a few JCo executive assistants will face job eliminations. It will be a big change. So start by thinking about who at each company we need to get involved in planning and executing the integration.”
Luis groaned. He imagined that JCo employees might feel resentment, sensing that their beloved little start-up was about to be devoured by the big, bad Wilab. And they likely would feel angry about the job cuts in the executive assistant ranks. But, he thought, many JCo employees might feel relief, knowing that they now had Wilab’s substantial financial and operational resources to tap into. The change would be significant for Wilab too. Just last week, Luis had heard Wilab’s head of IT complain that the company’s financial and HR systems were stretched to their limits. The company had acquired three new businesses in the past two years, and the number of users accessing its systems had exceeded what they were designed to accommodate.
Luis also wondered what it would be like collaborating with Sheila. This would be their first time working together since Sheila had joined Wilab, and Luis wanted to make a good first impression. From his experience working on other acquisitions, Luis knew that the more people they could involve in the integration effort, the better. But he wasn’t sure if Sheila held the same view. He prepared a document that summarized the best practices he’d used in the past. But Luis still felt uneasy as he emailed Sheila his recommendations later that afternoon. About an hour after hitting send, Luis called Sheila to walk her through the file.
“As I’m thinking about who to include in the acquisition integration,” Luis explained, “I’m pretty confident we’ll need four different teams.”
Sheila cut him off before he could elaborate. “Four teams?” she challenged.
Luis sensed some agitation and skepticism in Sheila’s voice, so he switched gears. “Let’s focus on the core project team,” Luis counseled. “We need employees from Wilab and JCo to plan the nuts and bolts of the integration.”
“That’s what I had in mind,” Sheila concurred. “We need to get this right. We need the A team. So who are you thinking about?”
Luis proposed forming a project team that included some strong performers he knew in both companies—people who could represent the departments most affected by the integration and who had enough authority to make some of the key decisions the project team would be charged with. Sheila agreed to most of Luis’s recommendations and suggested a few other employees. When they were done brainstorming, Luis decided to see if he could encourage Sheila to consider some additional names.
“What if we thought about the core project team from a leadership development perspective?” Luis proposed. “We absolutely need to include employees who already have technical expertise and who have the authority to make decisions. But what if we expanded the team just a bit to include a few folks we’ve got our eyes on for future leadership roles? This project could be just the leadership development experience some Wilab and JCo employees need.”
“Maybe,” Sheila replied. “But I’m not sure how they’ll learn anything from this project. So, I’m not agreeing. But maybe.”
Luis decided to take “maybe” as a win. He looked at his notes and pressed on. “We haven’t spoken yet about the change management team. We need a team that plans communications and training,” Luis continued.
“Yeah, I’m fine with that,” Sheila quickly assented. “We definitely need people to create communications and training.”
Luis actually thought the change management team could do much more than that, but he decided not to press his luck. Sheila had already agreed to two of the four teams he was proposing. True, they were the most obvious ones: They needed a project team to work on integration planning, and they needed someone to focus on communication and training. Still, Luis wondered if he could nudge Sheila a little further.
“You know, Sheila,” Luis proposed, “I think we need a transition-monitoring team.”
“Wait, aren’t we already creating a change management team?” Sheila queried. “Isn’t that the same thing? What’s this other team for?”
“The transition-monitoring team is different,” Luis explained. “The change management team has responsibility for actually planning communications and training. The transition-monitoring team will let us know how well these plans are working.”
“You’re asking a lot,” Sheila responded. “I don’t want a free-for-all. If we have too many people working on the integration, it’s going to get unwieldy.”
“Don’t worry, I have a plan for that,” Luis replied.
“Fine. What’s this other team you want to propose?”
Luis moved on to explain the fourth team he had recommended in his email to Sheila. “I know this acquisition is a done deal,” Luis explained. “But I think we need a red team.”
Luis hoped this would get Sheila back into his corner. He knew that Sheila had used red teams in the acquisitions and divestitures department at her former workplace. Each time the company evaluated whether to purchase a company, they assembled a team whose sole purpose was to poke holes in the deal—to come up with all the reasons their company should stop and walk away. The goal was to ensure that in their excitement about the benefits an acquisition could bring, they didn’t start ignoring warning signs that this was a bad deal.
“I love the red team concept,” Sheila responded.
Luis wondered for a second if he had scored another win. But Sheila continued, “The JCo acquisition is already a done deal. It’s a go. I don’t think a red team would be useful here.”
Luis wanted to explain his logic, but Sheila wasn’t done speaking. “Let’s say for a moment I agree with your idea to set up four teams,” Sheila asserted. “And I’m not saying I do agree. But if we had the four teams, have we identified everyone who needs to be involved?”
“That’s a great question,” Luis responded. “Even with the four teams, I don’t think we’ve got everybody.”
For a second, Luis thought he heard Sheila groan.
“To answer your question, I think we need to conduct a stakeholder analysis,” Luis explained. “You know, brainstorm all the people and groups who will be touched by the changes this acquisition will bring. And the people who can have an impact on whether the acquisition is successful or not. Then we can figure out how to involve each person or group in the right way.”
“Four teams plus a stakeholder analysis?” Sheila queried. “You’re recommending a lot, Luis. It’s going to be a free-for-all.”
“I agree there’s a lot of people and moving parts,” Luis responded. “But we can construct a RACI matrix that will help clarify—”
“Stop, Luis. Stop,” Sheila interrupted. Luis could see he had lost Sheila again. “I want to involve the right people in the right way,” she continued. “And I’m sure you do too. But with all these teams and processes, I think you may have lost sight of the problem we’re trying to solve here.”
Luis sat in silence as he tried to understand the pushback he was getting from Sheila. This conversation wasn’t going well.
“Here’s what I want you to do, Luis,” Sheila continued. “Go back and think about the challenges we’re trying to address. I’m not saying I disagree with what you’re proposing. But you have to convince me that we’re doing all of this for the right reason. What’s the problem we’re trying to solve here?”
Luis remained silent for another moment as he tried to absorb what Sheila was saying. “I’ll do that, Sheila,” Luis finally responded. “I agree we both want to involve the right people—and only the right people—in the right way. And I agree, we don’t want a free-for-all. Let me do some thinking and I’ll call you back.”
Luis hung up the phone and let out a groan. Things were so much easier when Luis had worked with Wilab’s prior head of business development. He didn’t question Luis’s recommendations. But here was Sheila, a newcomer, challenging everything he had to say.
Luis closed his eyes and inhaled deeply. He was trying to regroup. After a few deep breaths, he started to think that, just maybe, Sheila was right. Maybe, in his pitch, he hadn’t been clear about the problems he was trying to address. Perhaps, he should have started off by outlining the challenges he thought Wilab would face during the acquisition integration. Then he could show how the teams and approaches he recommended could address those challenges.
Luis thought back to the acquisitions and other change initiatives he had worked on in the past. Why did some of them go off the rails anyway? And what were the issues they faced trying to involve the right people in the right way?
Luis started typing furiously on his laptop. A half hour later, he read back the notes he had organized into a table (Table 5-1).
Table 5-1. Luis’s Notes for Tools to Solve Wilab’s Problems
| Problem We Encountered When We Didn’t Involve the Right People in the Right Way | Tool or Approach to Address the Problem |
|
• We made faulty decisions and experienced delays when we didn’t assign people with the right knowledge, skills, authority, and credibility to work on the project. • We missed the opportunity to develop employees’ leadership skills when we included only proven leaders in the change effort. |
Core Project Team |
|
• Employees were confused about what was happening within the organization, they didn’t have the knowledge or skills needed to support what was changing, and they didn’t buy into the change when we failed to allocate the right resources to focus on communication, training, and building support. |
Change Management Team |
|
• We didn’t fully understand what was important to the people most affected by the change when we didn’t gather enough input from employees “on the ground.” • There was confusion, miscommunication, and gossip when employees filled the void in communications with speculation and rumors. • We failed to generate buy-in and support among employees when we didn’t leverage those who were willing to advocate for the change. |
Transition-Monitoring Team |
|
• We failed to see the faults and mistaken assumptions in our plans when we didn’t hear from the naysayers and people who were skeptical about the change effort. |
Red Team |
|
• We made misguided decisions because we didn’t thoroughly understand the current state and how things would change when we didn’t identify everyone who would be affected by the change, and how they would be affected. • Employees didn’t buy into and support the change when we failed to identify influencers and other key people who could shape—in either a positive or a negative way—how others would view what was coming. • Employees affected by the change felt anxiety, resentment, and anger when they felt we didn’t provide them with appropriate opportunities to participate in the change effort. |
Stakeholder Analysis |
|
• People felt confused and resentful, and we experienced delays when we failed to clarify the roles, responsibilities, and authority of each person involved with the change. • Employees resisted adopting the change when they perceived that they should have had more say in how the change was implemented. |
RACI matrix |
“OK, I know what to do,” Luis thought to himself. He realized that his recommendations hadn’t changed. He still thought Wilab needed to establish four teams, conduct a stakeholder analysis, and construct a RACI matrix. But he recognized that he needed to alter the way he presented his ideas to Sheila. He would start by discussing the problems they needed to solve, then show how the team or approach he was recommending would help address the problem. “I can do this,” Luis announced to himself with renewed confidence. He redialed Sheila.
“Hi, Sheila,” Luis began. “You’re right. Can we do this again?”
Let’s explore what happened here. When Sheila called Luis and asked for ideas about whom to involve in the JCo acquisition integration, she likely was focused on all the work that had to get done to successfully complete the integration project. After all, business decisions needed to be made regarding how Wilab and JCo would operate after the purchase was complete. It’s possible that Sheila wanted Luis’s help to figure out who was going to implement these decisions once they were made.
But Luis interpreted Sheila’s question about who to involve in the integration project from a much broader perspective. He thought about how the project team would make smarter, more informed decisions if it gathered input from the numerous parties affected by the acquisition. He thought that Wilab and JCo could help allay the anxiety employees were bound to feel regarding the acquisition and could head off unproductive rumors before they had a chance to circulate if they provided employees with opportunities to actively participate in the change effort. Luis understood that for the JCo acquisition to succeed, Wilab and JCo needed to plan and operate the project from both the hard side—making smart, informed decisions and getting all the work organized and done on time—and from the soft side; that is, ensuring that the employees affected by the change felt they had the appropriate say in how that work would be completed. He knew that whether he was working on an acquisition, an organizational restructure, a software implementation, a leadership change, or something else, the company needed to involve the right people in the right way for the change to succeed. That’s probably why Luis wanted to set up so many teams and involve so many people.
And yet, Sheila was right to be concerned too. When embarking on a change initiative, you need to be clear about the challenges you’re facing and the problems you’re trying to solve. And you need to ensure that each action you take serves a purpose—that each tool or approach you deploy meets a real need and will help make things better. You need to be sure you’re using scarce resources—especially people’s time—wisely. And you want to be clear about how and why you’re asking people to participate, so you avoid a free-for-all.
In the remaining chapters in this section, we’ll look at the challenges your organization may face as you try to involve the right people in the right way in your change initiatives. And we’ll look at the tools and approaches you can use to address these challenges. Just like Luis, you’ll see that to involve the right people in the right way, you need to:
• Allocate resources with the right skills, authority, and credibility to guide project planning and execution. In chapter 6, you’ll see how the core project team can help you do that.
• Assign and integrate resources focused on communication, training, and building support. In chapter 6, you’ll learn how the change management team can help you tackle this challenge.
• Gather input and build advocacy for your change initiative from people “on the ground.” In chapter 7, you’ll see why you should consider establishing a transition-monitoring team to address this need.
• Hear from the skeptics and naysayers, so you can identify and address the flaws in your planning. In chapter 8, you’ll see how the red team can help you here.
• Understand who’s affected by the change and how. In chapter 9, we’ll cover how you can conduct a stakeholder analysis to meet this need.
• Clarify roles, responsibilities, and authority. In chapter 10, you’ll learn how to construct a RACI matrix to help you address this challenge.
As you read each chapter, you’ll see that some tools will help you address the challenges presented by the hard side of change. And you’ll see that to use these tools effectively, there are soft-side factors you need to consider. Likewise, for the tools designed to help you address the soft side of change, you’ll need to consider some hard side factors.
Are you eager to find out how to involve the right people in the right way? Let’s get started.