An
email from a far-flung correspondent brought this question:
“I know that there are certain
times when an organization is ready to change and when it doesn’t make sense to
try. Is there a rubric or evaluation tool that I can use to assess an organization’s
readiness for change? What are the
indicators I can look to and the levels to pull to get change going?”
An excellent question, and for
anyone in a position of leadership it is certainly one of THE questions. Ultimately what leaders bring to an
organization is change. This is not
always perceived by the organization as a good thing. Even when people who do see change as needed
may not realize the degree of dislocation that changes often require. Hence, being able to assess readiness is a
central part of a leader’s tool box.
Whether it is increasing sales,
growing into new markets, fixing processes, cutting costs, or improving the
current quality of what customers are getting for their money, change should be
an ongoing leadership agenda. The degree
and timeliness to which that change takes hold and “works”, is hard or easy, or
captures the commitment of staff is a function of the organization’s readiness. If leadership reads readiness incorrectly,
haphazardly, or jumps before thinking through broad issues, then change might
not be realized as envisioned.
Readiness to change is, in a
sense, the degree to which all people in an organization are led to recognize
that things need to be done differently now and that they are the people who
will—must—make it happen. That’s the
end-state. Let us deconstruct that
notion on our way to making a checklist of sorts for leaders.
r The Need.
Frankly, how painful is the status quo? Does it hurt enough to capture everyone’s
attention? Do people in the organization
get the idea that there is a big gap between where they are now and where they
want to be, should be or could be? What
are the consequences if nothing is done?
How desirable and valued is moving away from the status quo to a new
goal?
Are there numbers that describe the gap? Numbers and data seem to be the gold standard
in getting people’s attention. No felt
need, no impetus for change.
r The Instigator.
Who was the one who had the courage to raise his/her hand and say
the gap hurts? Or that there is an
opportunity waiting? Was it a position
leader, aka “the boss”, or someone else?
A small group? The whole group? A single-voice in the wilderness? Credibility and critical mass are issues
here. To get change moving, there has to
be a palpable pusher who is taken seriously.
Complaints do not start change initiatives unless they are from the
right people at the right volume. Staff
who are savvy about building coalitions and influencing can impact direction if
they focus on documenting the business problem and solutions and being helpful
contributors and not mutineers.
r Alignment.
Is everyone in the system seeing the same relative problem? Is the gap being interpreted the same way by
all parties? Has the gap caused disparate
coalitions and interest groups to form?
Is this a case of overcoming inertia and mediocrity and getting a
critical mass on side, or is everyone in the organization actively looking for
answers from…somewhere. Do people agree
there are challenges and opportunities ahead that need to and can be
addressed?
The same will be true of the solution when it emerges; is there
commitment to the approach, the solution, the strategy—whatever it is that
turns the corner. Research has
consistently shown how withholding full and wholehearted agreement at this
point can sink the most righteous change effort.
r Timing.
What else is the organization facing? Is the need-gap center stage now? Are there distractions and too many
activities and agenda items clouding up a clear path to getting people’s
attention? Are teams working on other
initiatives? Dedicated effort makes
change happen; a change effort is sunk if it looks like simply something else
to do.
r Structure.
Can the leader build a mechanism for making change happen? Is there a change management governance
committee in place, a task force, a group of anointed managers who are
deputized to lead the charge? Could
there be? Is this a cross-functional,
multi-level team? The leader of an
organization can’t do it alone; the “structure” is the team that is focused on
alignment, mobilization, and accelerating the change.
r People.
Are there core, A-team allies on board who “get it”, who have the
courage, patience, skill, dedication and vision to make this happen? A talented team consists of people who are
persistent, yet open. How many are there
on board? The right people on the
proverbial bus is the metaphor that Jim Collins indelibly embedded in the
corporate world. Are they present and
accounted for?
As for the staff, how resistant are the resistors? Will reason, patience, involvement and
care-and-feeding help accommodate the antagonists? Some people can be led only so far before
they have to make a decision to commit or go.
How far is far? Is there a sense
on the part of leadership that there is specific and liberal amount of patience
to deal with resistance and withholding at the end of which is a decision
point?
r Flexibility.
This is related to People.
Are people in the organization willing to be flexible? Can there be a consensus about a solution or
approach that might not be ideal, but is good enough for this time and
place? Is there room for people to come
to terms, so to speak, on a reasonable new way of doing things? What has the organization’s history lesson
about adapting?
r Leadership.
The best for last. Is there
a courageous leader with the vision or who constructs a vision and who is
determined to press that agenda home?
Diplomatic, astute, willing to listen, political but always focused on
the goal, determined to keep the pressure on for progress and never being
easily discouraged, at least in public.
This leader has to enlist for the long haul, and be prepared to do what
it takes. Leaders, are you ready for
that? Without leadership, there is no
change.
