Leadership focus should only be on change that will capitalise on the big benefit opportunities and/or ensure preparedness for catastrophic situations impacting on the organisation's reputation.
Executive leaders of organisations need to know the difference between a change for a big or small benefit as well a change that will have a big or small cost to the organisation and its stakeholders. Frequent or too much change that is incremental, insipid and insignificant can mean that an organisation’s employees and stakeholders may question whether it is really worth all the effort for little benefit.
Of course, it all depends on the source, the sense of urgency and need for the change, rather than ‘change for change’s sake’. Why I am raising this premise is because recently I have observed more frequent so called ‘change’ / ‘transformational change’ events than in the past which has stretched resources and not delivered the significant benefits to all key stakeholders. Some changes are definitely transformational and really needed, other changes are not. The types of ‘change’ can range from the very big and important to the very small for little benefit.
It is important for executive leaders of organisations to review and consider what the change benefit is and whether it is worth the effort. Is it for the important and high benefit reasons (survival or obtain a great opportunity) or insignificant ego driven or not appropriately risk analysed (change for change’s sake) that will cause more disruption than a benefit?
Examples of ‘big’ benefit changes:
- Capitalise on a big opportunity and/or minimise a potential catastrophic risk scenario (after big picture scanning and risk analysis)
- Mergers and acquisitions in an organisation and industry (where there are win-win and major growth opportunities or survival for all key stakeholders)
- Economic drivers (for survival and maintain / increase its competitive edge in the market – it may involve leaner management, re-prioritising, cutting out of a declining industry, restructuring, cost cutting and outsourcing)
- New Leadership / CEO (fixing the messes of the past that is really needed for significant improvement)
Examples of ‘small’ benefit changes:
- Economic drivers (as an excuse for tinkering with processes, restructuring and downsizing)
- Politically driven change (as in private or public sector reshuffled structures eg. – centralised vs decentralised, re-sizing, reshuffling portfolios)
- New Chief Executive (creating restructures to make their mark that will not be a big benefit to organisation.)
When should we make the Change?
'Change for change’s sake' for little benefit may cause heightened disruption to existing services and ‘change fatigue’ across management and employees. On the other hand, calling resources effectively to enable big benefit change can create greater efficiency and opportunity actualisation.
When do you call it a change and transformation improvement program and when don’t you? Some change may seem like a great idea but really was ill conceived and may be in the small benefits bucket. Far worse is when the organisation's stakeholders and people do not see or feel the need for change, have not had an effective history for successful change enablement and/or does not have the right supportive leadership and management culture to support, drive and enable the change.
So why bother? I liken it to heightening an issue as a crisis and using crisis management techniques. However, the fact is, it is only a minor matter that didn’t need all the hype, response and high impact resources that provides detrimental rather than beneficial change. On the other hand, I see organisations that dismiss a perfectly golden ‘carpe diem’ opportunity or 'sweep under the carpet' a looming potential catastrophic situation because they are too busy focusing on lower order / small things. Perhaps I have seen this all too often as an overseer Board and Audit and Risk Management Committee member and experienced past Auditor.
Let’s focus on the big Change that will really make the difference and matter!
My view is that significant and enforced change (ie, means survival or capitalising on a big opportunity for the company and industry) requires a radical change management effectiveness technique. There is an urgency and a compelling reason to keep afloat and it needs to be done.
I have just been reading the more recent "Leading Change" book sequel “Accelerate” by John P Kotter, an Emeritus Professor of Leadership at Harvard Business School and ‘Leading Change’ guru. The interesting premise that Kotter highlights is that, in today's world, change is required on a faster time scale due to increasing volatility and therefore requires an agile and new network framework (systems, structures and cultures) in addition to the tried and proven traditional change management approaches to guide successful change. Kotter reinforces that enabling fast ‘change is premised on the fact that it is generally because of a matter of urgency, a big opportunity or to avert a catastrophic impact on the organisation’.
So, why am I highlighting this?
When we intend to marshal the whole organisation and our stakeholders to buy in and support ‘the change’ it better be worth the effort. Once bitten twice shy... or it could be case of 'Peter crying wolf' if it wasn't a change that was urgently needed after all. So, when you do call people and stakeholders to action for a major
change that is worth the effort, the people you need to volunteer, the sponsors and buy in from the people for the change may not really be there to support the change when needed!
Let’s reflect and ask ourselves
Let’s reflect and ask ourselves
Are you constantly making small, insipid changes that really don’t
make a real positive improvement to your organisation, systems, practices and organisation's outcomes? Do your management and employees feel that they are spinning wheels, going nowhere
fast and for little benefit?
If so, this only creates people fatigue, disruption and little employee / stakeholder buy in. This in turn will make it difficult to marshal everyone when a much needed major change in the future is required. So, think first before jumping into enforcing change that could have more cost than benefit.
