The Hard Side of Change Management

by | Jun 14, 2021 | Management

This image features a wooden table with various change management terms like "team," "engage," "measure," "execute," "plan," "improve," and "strategy" arranged in a word cloud. Two people are seated at the table with papers, a coffee cup, and a smartphone. A logo reading "Global Investment Strategies" is in the bottom right corner.

Managing change is complex, and part of the problem is that there is little consensus on the elements that have the most significant impact on transformation programs. You’ll probably get other replies if you ask different CEOs to name the one aspect that is important to the success of these programs. That’s because each manager approaches an initiative from a unique perspective, focusing on distinct success variables based on personal experience.

Many change management experts have recently concentrated on soft problems like culture, leadership, and encouragement. These factors are vital for success, but they aren’t enough to get transformation projects off the ground. Companies must also examine the problematic issues, such as the length of time it takes to finish a change initiative, the number of employees needed to carry it out, and so on.

The Hard Side of Change Management

In this crucial stage, a lack of leadership is one of the reasons why organizational change fails. The good news is that there are steps we can take to make it easier to let go. For example, the DICE framework is a simple method for determining how well a corporation implements its strategic plan. Here DICE stands for Duration, Integrity, Commitment, Effort.

Duration (The time it will take for the change program to be finished)

This duration is the amount of time between milestone reviews for longer ventures. Companies should explicitly assess transformation projects at least bimonthly, as the likelihood of change initiatives failing increases enormously when the period between reviews exceeds eight weeks, in our experience. According to BCG, a long project with regular checks is more likely to succeed than a short project with periodic reviews.

Integrity (Timely completion of the project by the project team)

This component assesses the project team’s capability based on the talents and characteristics of the team members and the project’s configuration. Project teams must be cohesive and well-led since they deal with various activities, resources, demands, external stimuli, and unforeseen difficulties. Therefore, senior executives must specify members’ duties, commitments, and accountability, not just ask around the watercooler if a project team is performing well.

Commitment

Change programs require the dedication of influential leaders and the passion of those who will be most affected by the change. Top-down commitment is essential for enlisting the help of those on the ground. Employees are reluctant to change if they don’t see the company’s leadership supporting a project. If companies want change efforts to succeed, they must be committed to their people.

Effort (Change initiative workload in comparison to regular workload)

Organizations should not underestimate the work required to accomplish a change. This requirement is critical for team members and individuals whose job procedures may alter due to the change.

A crucial aspect is reducing the typical workload of personnel assigned to the change implementation team. To transition to new processes, project teams must determine how much work workers will have to accomplish in addition to their current tasks. In an ideal world, no one’s workload should expand above a reasonable level.

Final Thoughts

The challenging factors have the advantage of being easy to quantify, either directly or indirectly. In addition, these elements are relatively easy to modify. As a result, organizations can improve their odds of project success by measuring and then positively changing the complex components.