Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • The Hard Side of Change Management - Sirkin, Keenan, Jackson

    Încărcat de

    deni
    502 vizualizări10 pagini
    The Hard Side of Change Management - Sirkin, Keenan, Jackson

    Drepturi de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formate disponibile

    PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    The Hard Side of Change Management - Sirkin, Keenan, Jackson

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    502 vizualizări10 pagini

    The Hard Side of Change Management - Sirkin, Keenan, Jackson

    Încărcat de

    deni
    The Hard Side of Change Management - Sirkin, Keenan, Jackson

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 10
    Companies must pay as much attention to the hard side of change management as they do to the soft aspects. By rigorously focusing on four critical elements, they can stack the odds in favor of success. by Harold L. Sirkin, Perry Keenan, and Alan Jackson HEN FRENCH NOVELIST Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr wrote © VW, "Pls ga change, pases la méme chase" could have been enmnpan bom abs hames cdc ropes decades, academicssmanagers and constants eaieg tat naslonning organiations diel, have decd the ubjec They ve sng the pes of leaders who communicate vison and walk the talkin one ta ake Ese eaee eee they te ined gece ccna ee sizavona cuture and empioyee atten Theyre tensed tthe ests betncen topdovn tansformaton efforts and participatory sprees to i hang. And they've exhorted companestolaunch mpage that appeal ocronER 2005, 109 109 ‘The Hard Side of Change Management to people's hearts and minds. Stil, studies show that in ‘most organizations, two out of three transformation ini- tiatives fail, The more things change, the more they stay the same, ‘Managing change is tough, but that there is Title nt on what factors most influ. ence transformation initiatives. Ask five executives to ‘ame the one factor critical for the success of these pro- grams, and you'll probably get five different answers. That's because each manager looks at an initiative from his or her viewpoint and, based on personal experience, focuses on different success factors. The experts, too, offer different perspectives. A recent search on Amazon.com for books on “change and management” tuned up 6,153 titles, each with a distinct take on the topic. Those ideas have a lot to offer, but taken together, they force compa- nies to tackle many priorities simultaneously, which spreads resources and skills thin. Moreover, executives use different approaches in ie zation, which compounds the turmoil that usually ac- ‘companies change. TH ECent years fiany change management gurus have focused on soft issues, such as culture, leadership, and ‘motivation, Such elements are important for success, but managing these aspects alone isn't sufficient to imple- ‘ment transformation projects. Soft factors don't direct influence the outcomes of many change programs. For instance, visionary Teadership 1 oft Ip fen eal for ransor ‘mation projects, but not alway Same can be said ‘about communication with employees. Moreover, it isn’t easy to change attitudes or relationships; they're deeply ingrained in organizations and people. And although changes in, say, culture or motivation levels can be indi- rectly gauged through surveys and interviews, it’s tough to get reliable data on soft factors. °WYREPS mISInE we Believe, + Focus on the notso- fan pec Tang tang IE SeTore These Tatas bear thes distinct characteristics. Fist companies are able to measure them in direct imaifect ways Sova, compantes car-easly commun ‘Be thet fnportance both within-and outside orzank Sion THIGLand pethaps mos imporant, businesses ‘Ge capable of infencing thoes ements quick, Some So aor e armaton nT ‘ree time necessary fo compet tthe number of peo: Se aarti and he nana es at pled actions are expected to achieve OUT Fsearch eee panes ojala get Oe round when companies neglect the hard factors. That doesnt mean Harold 1 Sirkin (hal ops@bcg.com) is a Chicago-based senior that executives can ignore the soft elements; that would bea grave mistake. However if companies don't pay ater tion tothe hard issues first, transformation programs will break down before the soft elements come into play “Thats a lesson we learned when we identified the ‘common denominators of change. In 1992, we started with the contrarian hypothesis that organizations handle transformations in remarkably similar ways. We researched projects in a number of industries and countries to iden- tify those common elements. Our initial 25-company. ay eel a consistent correlation Between the ox coines (Guceess or flare) of change sand four Nad factors: project duration, particularly the time be= taen project eviews, performance igri, oF the capa bilities of project teams; the commitment of both senior executives and the staff whom the change will affect the ‘most; and the additional effort that employees must make to cope with the change. We called these variables the Bice factors because we could load hem in favor of projects suctess. We completed our study in 1994, and in the 11 years since then, the Boston Consulting Group has used those four factors to predict the outcomes, and guide the exe- cation, of more than 000 change management inita- tives workdwide. Not only has the correlation hek, but no other factors (or combination of factors) have predicted outcomes as well The Four Key Factors |fyou think about it, the different ways in which organiza- «gs ombine e Tour ators create 9 continuum projects that are set up to succeed to those that are ‘setup ee aareproea Toy sae, SNS andcohesie team, championed by te mane See iaplmened a depannen Tat ey tthe change and has to put in very little additional effort, is bound to succeed, At the oie extreme, along ‘rawn out project executed by an inexpert, un Sevand dispinted team, without any top-level ‘and targeted at a function that dislikes the change and sto doa lot of extra work, will fail, Businesses can’ eas- ily identify change programs at either end of the spec- trum, but most initiatives occupy the middle ground where the likelihood of success or failure is difficult to as- sess, Executives must study the four DICE factorscarefully to figure out if their change programs will fly~or die. Duration. Companies make the mistake of worrying mostly about the time it will take to implement change vice president and the global operations practice leader ofthe Boston Consulting Group. He isthe coauthor of “Fix the Process, Not the Problem” (HBR July-August 1990) and "Innovating “or Cash” (HBR September 2003) Perry Keenan (Keenan perry@bcgcom) is a BCG vice president ad the global topic leader for rigorous program management based in Auckland, New Zealand. Alan Jackson (jackson alan@bcg.com) Isa BCG senior Wce president in Sydney Austratia, More onchange management and an interactive DICE too are available at wav beg.com/DICE no 110 pRRAEEERESSETERETTSTTVRRBARRABARARRARKeARRTTRARARarar programs. They assume that the longer an initiative car- ries on, the more likely itis to fail~the early impetus will peter out, windows of opportunity will close, objectives will be forgotten, key supporters will leave or lose their enthusiasm, and problems will accumulate. However, con- ‘wary to popular perception, our studies show that a long project that is reviewed frequently is more likely to suc- ceed than a short project that isn't reviewed frequent {use tine beter eviews isovector succes than a project’ lifespan. Companies should formally review transformation projects at least bimonthly sinc, m-ouF experience, The robability that change initiatives will ran rises exponentially when the time between reviews ex- ceeds eight weeks. Whether reviews should be scheduled ‘even more frequently depends on how long executives feel the project can carry on without going off track. Complex projects should be reviewed fortnightly; more famiar or tagorvart inate on be saat ae aiees — ‘Scheduling milestones and assessing their impact are the best way by which executives can review the execu- tion of projects, identify gaps, and spot new risks. The most effective milestones are those that describe major actions or achievements rather than day-to-day activi. | ties. They must enable senior executives and project spon- sors to confirm that the project has made progress since the last review took place. Good milestones encompass a number of tasks that teams must complete. For exam- ple, describing a particular milestone as “Consultations with Stakeholders Completed” is more effective than “Consult Stakeholders” because it represents an achieve- | ment and shows that the project has made headway. | Moreover, it suggests that several activities were com- pleted ~ identifying stakeholders, assessing their needs, and talking to them about the project. When a milestone Tooks as though it won't be The projec looks as though it won't be reached on time, the project, (San tounestand why tke corective tons Gelopainan te ance eee te aces eee ‘Review of such a ilestone—what we refer to asa“Jearn- ing milestone” — jsn’t an impromptu assessment of the Monday-morning kind. It should be a formal occasion (Erin seniocnangenen poss ane po mensions that have-a bearing on suserseand Tre | See a ag ou Nest Wa pevcie x eases rat i ret and members an sponsrs mus check the team son track tocompletesor has finshed al the tasks to deliver, the milestone. They should also determine whether Achieving the milestone has had the desired effet on es crupenge clocer > prom the tam Ace reaching the milestone; and determine how that aecom- plishment will affect the next phase of the project. | Sponsors and team members must have the power to | The Hard Side of Change Management @> the duration ottime uni thechange program is completed if it has a short life span; if not shot the amountof ie between viens afrmletones etude > The commitment ta chargé tat tp manage- | ment and employees affected bythe change (C2) display. ‘dress ealsscs When necessary ter processes, agree to push for more or different resources, or suggest ction. At these meetings, senior ex- ecutives must pay special attention to the dynamics within teams, changes in the organization's perceptions about the initiative, and communications from the top. tntepty By perfomanee integrity, we mean the e tent to which soeipaniee can Tey on ARE OT HERES bag Eee snc ea acme grec page bo es that. Besides, senor executives are often reluctant to allow tar performers to join change efforts because 1c. lar work can suffer But sine the success af change pro. ams depends on the qualty of teams, companies SB pteees aa atin oes ge CSenlane dont faker conte at hae ee ceeded in implementing change programs, we find that employees go the extra ile to ensure thelr dayto-day work gets done. ines a.wide range of activities, resources, pressures, external stimuli, and unforeseen oBstacles, they must be cohesive and well led, I's not enugh for senor HECTTVES 13 people a the water. cooler if a project team is doing wel; they must claify ‘members’ roles, commitments, and accountability. They mst choose the team leader and, most important, work cout the team’s composition. Smart executive sponsors, we find, are very inclusive wien pehnp roams Tans They den alent besa m ut The Hard Side of Change Management names from key colleagues, including human resource managers; by circulating criteria they have drawn up; ‘and by looking for top performers in all functions. While they accept volunteers, they take care not to choose only supporters of the change initiative. Senior executives pet- sonally interview people so that they can construct the right portfolio of skill, knowledge, and social networks. “They also decide if potential team members should com- ‘it all their time to the project; if not, they must ask them to allocate specific days or times of the day to the initiative. Top management mi ‘on which it will judge the ted thateval i ‘rocess. Once the project gets under way, sponsors must measure the cohesion of teams by administering confi- dential surveys to solicit members’ opinions. Executives often make the mistake of assuming that because someone is a good, well-liked manager, he or she will also make a decent team leader. That sounds rea- sonable, but effective managers of the status quo aren't necessarily good at changing organizations, Usual ‘good team leaders have problem-solving skills, are results he was doing much more than necessary to display his support for a nettlesome project. When we talked to line ‘managers, they said that the CEO had extended very litte backing for the project. They felt that if he wanted the project to succeed, he would have to support it more visibly! A rule of thumb: When you feel that you are talk 'ag.up a change initiative atleast three tim ata wu need to, your managers will fee t are backin, the transformation. “Sometimes, senior executives are reluctant to back ini- tiat z they're often bringing ‘bout changes that may negatively affect employees jobs and lives. However, if senior executives do not com ‘iunicate the need for change, and what it means for em ‘Ployees, they endanger their projects” success, In one fr hhancial services firm, top management's commitment to ‘a program that would improve cycle times, reduce et- rors, and slash costs was low because it entailed layots, Senior executives found it gutwrenching to talk about layoffs in an organization that had prided itself on being a place where good people could find lifetime employ- ment. However, the CEO realized that he needed totackle THE SIMPLICITY OF the DICE framework often proves to be its biggest problem; executives seem to desire more complex answers. By overlooking the obvious, however, compromises that.don’t work. orjented, are methodical in their approach but tolerate ambiguity, are organizationally savvy, are willing to ac. SEpe reptile for decisions and while b ‘Being highly, mot ‘dorrt crave the limelight. A CEO who success- fully led two major transformation projects in the past ten years used these six criteria to quiz senior executives about the caliber of nominees for project teams. The top management team rejected one in three candidates, on average, before finalizing the teams. ‘Commitment. Companies must boost the commit: ment of two different groups of people if they want” change projects to take Toot: They must get Te Sere ema aeTaT ere wm the most nluent eeives what we calli), uhoare not necessarily those with the top titles. And Faust take into account the enthusiasm — or often, lack. Teof=oF the people who must deal wi - tems, process sof working (C2) mitment from those at the coal face, 1f employees don’t, ‘Ee that the companys leadership is i Fheyie Unlikely to change, No amount of top-level sup- port is too much. In 1999, when we were working with the CEO of a consumer products company, he told usthat nz they often end up making the thomy issues around the layoffs to get the project implemented on schedule. He tapped a senior company veteran to organize a series of speeches and meetings in order to provide consistent explanations for the layoffs, the timing, the consequences for job security, and so on. He also appointed a well-respected general manager to lead the change program. Those actions reassured em- ployees that the organization would tackle the layoffs in a professional and humane fashion, ‘Companies often underestimate the role that manag: crs and staff play in transformation efforts. By comm: ricating with them too Tate or inconsistently, senior ex: ecutives end up alienating the people who are most affected by the changes. It’s surprising how often some- thing senior executives believe is a good thing is seen by staff as a bad thing, or a message that senior executives think is perfectly clear is misunderstood. That usually happens when senior executives articulate subtly differ ‘ent versions of critical messages. For instance, in one company that applied the DICE framework, scores for fa project showed a low degree of staff commitment. It tured out that these employees had become confuse even distrustful, because one senior manager had said, “Layofis will not occur,’ while another had said, “They are not expected to occur.” Organizations also under- estimate their ability to build staff support. A simple effort to reach out to employees can turn them into champ ‘ons of new ideas. For exam- ple, in the 1990s, a major ‘American energy producer was unable to get the sup- port of mid-level managers, supervisors, and workers for productivity improvement program. After trying several times, the company’s senior executives decided to hold a series of one-on-one conver- sations with mid-level man- agers ina last-ditch effort to win them over. The conver- sations focused on the pro- ram’ objectives, ts impact ‘on employees, and why the organization might not be able to survive without the changes. Partly because of the straight talk the initia tive gained some momen tum. This allowed a project team to demonstrate a series Of quick wins which gave the initiative anew lea on life Effort. When companieslaunch transformation efforts, they frequently dom tea ‘the fact, that employees are already busy with their day to-day responsibitTesACCORAINE To Salling TTS Pa Ie in many BusineNe Work Sopplus-hour weeks. If, on ‘op of existing responsibilities, line managers and stat have to deal with changes to their work or to the systems they use, they will resist Project teams must calculate how ees will have 10 do beyond their to to new processes, Ideally, no one's work load should inerease mor Gobevond that, and ie init vi ofaiyrunine wane Keene will become overstretched and compromise either the change program or normal operations. Employee morale will fal, and conflict may arise between teams and line Staff To minimize the dangers, project managers should use a simple metric lke the percentage increase in effort the employees who must cope with the new ways feel they must contribute. They should also check i the addi tional effort they have demanded comes on top of heavy ‘workloads and if employees are likely to resist the project because it will demand more oftheir scarce tims employ. Companies must decide whether to take away some of “employees who will play key roles in the transformation project. Companies can start by Fidding these employees of discretionary or nonessential responsibilities. In addition, firms should review all the other projects in the operating plan and assess which ones are critical for the change effort. At one company, the project steering committee delayed or restructured 120 ‘out of 250 subprojects so that some line managers could focus on top-priority projects. Another way to relieve pressure js for the company to bring in temporary work- like retired managers, to carry out routine activities or {0 outsource current processes until the changeover is complete. Handing ff routine work o delaying eoect is costly and ime conSsUMTIME.Ucompames meee CGrough sch sues Boone Kinga TS Creating the Framework ‘As we came to understand the four factors better, we cte- ated a framework that would help executives evaluate their transformation initiatives and shine a spotlight on interventions that would improve their chances of sue ess. We developed a scoring system based on the variables m3 The Hard Side of Chan nt 5. ALCULATING DICE SCORES {eompanis can deter ter shang proarams wil succeed by aking executes to caus ses foreach of ne fu actor ote BIER ET = dua neni commie defor Tey mesa le fromm 19 A(usi lenecess she seor ter Thus as ead “tibu foarae! ja score shat ibis blahly unl nunibute to success, We find thatthe fo: owing questi and seoing guidelines allow executives to ate Sea een nae eee © purerion ip). tiv youcan give the project point, andi they are justi: Ask: ronal projet ievigus oc regularh? (the projecting, points. theyre reluctant or strongly reluctant you il he a Twhabistheav-, should award the projet 3 oF 4 points es age ihe Neteoh Slat fo bai score: \f the time betwee nlc evi a EFFORT [E] fageespeabie vont you should gjve the project point. Ifthe time is be percentage ofncreased effort that employ BE liven two andifour months, you should award the project ees must spake to ifn lement the change effort? Does the in- © > points; between four and eight months3 points; and if Srrabrintcopegs pars ey noclond Nepco™ eviews are more than eight months apart ive the project plestronaly esis See ronthem@ 4 s ‘Score: If the project requires less than 10% Extra WOTK BY etn “4 points d ployees, you can give it 1 point. If W's 10W to. 20% extra IL INTEGRITY OF PERFORMANCE [1] should get2 points. fits 20% to aomyit must be3 points. And ithe tearm leader capabled How strong pre team mem-, if ts more than or addtional work, you should give the ‘bers! skills and motivations? Dothey havesuficenttimeta, project points: . Soesee ie echange lmalner. Se 4 ore the pibjeck team Jed by a Highly capable leader Execiives eah combine the four elements inte prolect “who is respected by peetsjif the miémbers have the skills score, When we conducted a regression analysis of our dats rnd motivation to complete the project in the stipulated base of change efforts, we found that the.combination that 2 ime fame, and ifthe company has assigned at least om of correlates most closely with actual outcomes doubles the iho team members’ time to the project, you can give the weight given to team performance (I) and senior manage ES project + point. Ifthe team is lacking on all tnose dimen- ment commitment (C1). That translates into the following sions, you should award the projet 4 points. Ftheteamisca- formule _ pabilties are somewhere in between, assign the project 2or IGE Score = Inthe rto scoring system, the formula generates over all scores that range from 7 to 28. Companies can compare ‘SENIOR MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT [61] 4 project’ scare with thase of past projects, and their eu: Ask Do seniocexecutives regularly communicate the reason, comes to assess if the projects slated for sce Ut fale 3 points. “ ortie change nthe importance of ts success? Isthemes-, Ourdatashowa clear distribution af scores. S neconvining he messsseconsisent bolbdciossthe Sooves between Zand 14: The project vente tose “ topmana am and overtime? Has ent, 6 * Tote enough esoutes to the change programm? Scores i ower than 17: | Soo Trssnior management has, through actions and prot success are sing, uadicuasy as the sora vrord, clearly communicated the need for change, you must. proaches iz This i the Worry Zone © ive th project pont. f senior executives appear to be Seneg one 7rhe proet saree apo 5 eurra it gets 2 03 points managers perceive senor ex scores owe the sks o succes are i #) ecutives to be reluctant to support the change, award the very high, Beyond 9, the project's unlikely to succeed. That’ Foret aint ‘hye cal his the Woe Zone We have changed the boundaries of the zones overtime: © LOCAL-LEVEL COMMITMENT (C:] For instance, the Worry Zone was beeen 14 and 2 points Aske Do the employees most affected ty te change under, at fst andthe Woe Zne rom 2028 pins Bue found sun Fee TRL AESTiIeeMETha thatcompanies pee tobe ated Youble ass00020ut {Gisele and supportive or worried and obst comes become unpredictable 171020 points) We therfore FP Seater employees are eager to take on the change initio compressed the Worry Zone and expanded the Woe Zone na HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW 4 RARAARARARAARAARARABRARABRABABBABABRBABRaesaeanaaayaD ‘The Hard Side of Change Management that affect each factor. Executives can assign scores to the Pane {actors and combine them to arrive at a project Score. (See the sidebar Calculating DICE Scones”) Although the assessments are subjective, the system since eimPanles an objective framework for making those decisions. Moreover, the scoring mechaniem ure recat executives are evaluating projects and making {rade-offs more consistently across projects {{comPany can compare its DICE score on the day it Aichs off a project withthe scores of previous projects ag Wwell as their outcomes, to check if the initiative has bee Set up for success. When we calculated the scores of the 225 change projects in our database andl compared them with the outcomes, the analysis was compelling, Projects ql 0 {or zones: Win, which ‘Beals that any project with a score in that Tange isco Aistically Tkely to succeeds worry WHT Project's outcome is hard to predict; and woe, which th plies that th is totally unprea iediocrity or failure. (See the exhibit "DICE Scores Prev ict Project Outcomes") {Companies can track how change projects are faring by

    S-ar putea să vă placă și