I was recently asked a great question “What separates companies that implement change well from those that don’t?” My initial response was that there are many factors that result in some companies being more successful at implementing and sustaining change over others and went on to explain a few of those.
Yet after further reflection considering all the changes that I’ve seen implemented well, as well as those implemented badly, I began to see a consistent thread throughout. [Read more…]
It’s a common scenario when changes is announced – you announce a change and some people are onboard and some resist. And those who are against can be passive, quiet resistors or active, verbal resistors. So how do you deal with the resistors, especially those who are more vocal in their resistance? Do you isolate them some how to minimize their influence and the disruption they are causing? Or is there another way? And when you isolate them, do you really disrupt their influence or does it still occur, just behind your back?
The most common issue I talk to clients about is how to deal with conflict that naturally arises during the change process. I’m sure you’ve experienced it yourself – you announce change and you get a wide range of responses from your audience from active and obvious conflict such as verbal disagreement to the not so obvious conflict of passive resistance. Whilst conflict is a normal and natural part of change, people’s response to it is not standard by any means. You announce change and some people don’t seem to mind it, some people avoid it like the plague and others seem to thrive on it or create more of it to to function. There is no “right or wrong way” to approach change as we are all wired differently so we naturally approach things differently.
Most companies believe that resistance is avoided by not communicating to those impacted by change. Their mindset is if we keep people in the dark long enough and then spring change on them at the last moment, it’s too late for people to resist so we can push the change through with the least amount of effort. Whilst this sounds good in theory, in fact the opposite is true. You might be able to push through the change in the short term but in the long term you break trust between the company or leader and those impacted by the change, and you now have a disengaged, untrusting workforce that will have decreased productivity, and further changes will be much harder to implement.
Major trust issues can occur when a major disconnect exists between what senior management believes is going on and what is really going on in a change initiative which in the long term leads to poor engagement, loss of morals and a unwillingness to engage with change. I remember a few years ago I was promoted to a more senior position which meant that I sat it on meetings with the senior management team where we reported on major projects. Whilst I wasn’t on this particular project, I knew a lot about it and I knew the project was in real trouble as it had stalled to a grinding halt due to its inability to get key resources. Yet this was not portrayed by the project leader and as far as senior management were told the project was at risk but it was under control, and so it was brushed over. This went on for weeks until the magnitude of the problem was finally revealed but it was too late. People had quit, key time had been lost and the delay in this project snowballed into delays in other key projects.