How to accelerate organisational change

There are two broad areas in delivering effective organisational change. Each broad area can be best described as parts of an iceberg, the one above the water and the one below the water. A brief search on Google for the volume of an iceberg below the water is 90%. Stretching my grasp of arithmetic this means 10% is above the water. What does this mean for factors that accelerate organisational change?

Think about your change management activities. Where do you spend most of your time and how is change delivery measured? Now we’re returning to the iceberg metaphor. Above the water, 10% contains metrics, measures, reporting, processes, formal communication. That leaves 90% below the water.

Effective organisational change requires both above and below the water factors to be working in collaboration, being delivery multipliers rather than cancelling, minimising, each other.

Successful organisational change requires “success” to be defined and effectively communicated, focus and commitment from the leadership and all stakeholders on objectives and key results (OKRs) being delivered to the agreed change plan with an organisational culture that facilitates the change.

Create a pre-change “go” discussion on what the definition of successful change is, what the success delivery OKRs are and how they will be measured, that appropriate resourcing is in place and a change-oriented communication process established.   

This sounds like common sense.  However, “below the water” using the iceberg metaphor factors, in practical terms, are often ignored or at least often do not receive the appropriate attention and real commitment.

The challenge to having this pre-change discussion is two-fold. Firstly, the factors “above the water” are, relative to those “below the water” much easier to measure, accepted as tangible and fact-based. Frankly, these factors are more acceptable to senior managers as rational, objective factors of delivery achievement.  

Secondly, the “below the water” factors are often seen as real though somewhat ethereal. I think it fair, at this point, in the spirit of full disclosure, I declare as an organisational change practitioner, to be fully committed to a two-factor approach to change, continually balancing “above and below the water” factors affecting the evolving organisational change transition.

As a lead-in to the factors that accelerate organisational change, a quote attributed to W Edwards Deming, generally globally accepted as the founding or one of the main thought-leaders for Quality.

“It is wrong to suppose that if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it…. a costly myth.”  

The rest of this blog is aimed at identifying factors that help avoid costly mistakes should they be given appropriate commitment from the significant sponsors and stakeholders involved and responsible for implementing effective change.   

Let me give some shape to appropriate commitment. For me, appropriate commitment is the organisational and individual ability to acknowledge the potential positive and negative impact on decisions from organisational culture and personal biases.

As a couple of thought-provokers, how closely does the stated organisational vision, values, and culture match with organisational realities? How likely are the stereotypes for Directors of Finance, Supply Chain, Manufacturing, Human Resources, Sales, Quality and Customer Services not forgetting Information Technology likely to complement each other and their responsibilities for implementing effective change.

How would the individual and collective personalities and biases effect the implementing of organisational change?

Most of the time, the appointment or selection of sponsors and stakeholders is made at least in the first rush of change excitement based on seniority. If seniority is the criteria this is an example of “above water” thinking, relating seniority with commitment and positive influence for the change programme.

Take a moment to reflect on who you, as change practitioners, would choose as sponsors or stakeholders if you were given free choice. Would they be the same individuals with whom you are currently working? If yes, great. If not, why not and could a change be made?

If you were to ask your current change sponsors and stakeholders to complete a RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) for their understanding of their role as a sponsor or stakeholder, what would be the output compared to the day-to-day actions? Would they agree on the role definition for sponsor or stakeholder using standard definitions e.g., ITIL, AGILE?

If there is a lack of agreement and support for consistent behaviours, instead of change velocity there is more likely to be confusion and misdirection impacting change efficacy.

I’ve had to do a bit of Google research to find the source of a quote and variation that’s been around for a long time. According to Google, it’s been around a really long time. People may doubt what you say, but they will believe what you do: attributed to Lewis Cass, American Military Officer Politician and Statesman, 1782-1866.

The “above/below” connection here is the potential difference between what is said, the public statements contrasted with the potential for contrasting actual behaviours.  It is a critical success factor for effective change that what is said closely matches what is done. Thanks to Lewis Cass!     

Let me define what I mean by line managers. These are managers with people reporting directly, for both operational and staff departments. Operational departments have a clear focus on delivery of the organisation’s products and/or services. Staff departments have more focus on strategy and facilitating organisational effectiveness (other definitions are available).

“Above the water” will likely state line managers are committed to the strategic change and have aligned OKRs/Objectives providing measurable focus on change delivery.

“Below the water” has the potential to be very different depending on organisational culture and what the reality is for OKRs and Objectives.

Basically, how closely are BAU (Business As Usual) and Change deliverables aligned. Practicalities can eventuate around resourcing with both numbers of staff and skillsets for both deliverables likely to be relatively scarce with senior managers facing potential competition and conflict with who does what, when!  

It’s worth a mention on the potential negative effects of cognitive dissonance of line managers (and others). The impact on the efficacy of organisational change implementation is often ignored as sponsors, stakeholders and others of influence choose to ignore the contradictions they push into the organisation. Contradictions between what is said and behavioural reality. There is a case to argue that the more organisationally senior the individual or group is, then the more confusion can be caused.

“Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. People tend to seek consistency in their attitudes and perceptions, so this conflict causes unpleasant feelings of unease or discomfort.

The inconsistency between what people believe and how they behave motivates them to engage in actions that will help minimize feelings of discomfort. People attempt to relieve this tension in different ways, such as by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding new information.” Verywellmind.com, accessed 1 November, 2023.

When creating a change plan, take time to reflect how the impact of embedding meaningful change into the organisation can be facilitated by practical engagement with line management.

Engage with line management as early as possible in the change process. This is immensely practical as it shows respect for the job of line management, provides an opportunity to find out and action what would be helpful in balancing BAU activities while transitioning to new ways of working.

A key element is spending time with sponsors and senior stakeholders in creating a balanced approach to OKRs, reflecting both requirements of delivering BAU products and/or services while transitioning to the future products and/or services.

Once this is in a state for discussion i.e., not a fait a compli, engage with line managers for their thoughts and suggestions. The more they have meaningful input, the more likely they will be psychologically and physically aligned to implementing change. They, in turn, should adopt this approach to communicate with their reporting staff.

The above will no doubt sound like common sense and it is!      

The reason for mentioning this specifically is, in my experience, most organisations say this is in-place, the reality being it is not, in any meaningful way. Meaning those likely most affected by the change are also having to cope with cognitive dissonance, using current practices while transitioning to new ways of working.

This is one of the many findings and observations identified by Elton Mayo et al in the Hawthorne Experiments of the Western Electric company, USA during the 1920s and 30s.

Attributed to these findings is the following: individuals often modify their behaviour if they know they are being observed. This phenomenon became known as “The Hawthorne Effect”. How does knowing this potentially accelerate organisational change?

Earlier, I mentioned the importance of behaviour, appropriate metrics and engaging with line management. These factors, behaviours, systems and processes all have the potential for accelerating and embedding effective organisational change. Unfortunately, their absence can significantly slow down effective change velocity.

Here's a practical example from some of my recent work in organisational change associated with an ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) implementation.

Everything that should be in-place e.g., Board commitment, resourcing, metrics, project plan were all stated available and committed to delivery. However, the reality was significantly different almost exactly opposite to the stated commitment. More effort was going into trying to resolve stated commitment to the project than was going into the delivery of the project! The staff involved were almost constantly in a state of cognitive dissonance regarding their day-to-day work priorities. What was said, compared to the reality. Instead of accelerating project delivery the not so below the water factors were a significant drag to delivery efficacy.