Involving many people in change efforts is a critical element of change management. It widens the aperture of perspectives, creates a wider range of solutions, and increases the commitment that people need to do things differently. But expecting a broad group of stakeholders to all put aside their personal and functional agendas for the greater good may be unrealistic. No matter how many of a “big hat” people wear, it is human nature to view decisions through the lens of whether they are good or bad for individuals and their groups. This can be especially difficult for mid-sized companies with a corporate culture. If you are considering major change in your mid-sized company – and you have a culture of widespread engagement – this article covers some principles to keep in mind as you navigate the change.
One of the sacred principles of change management is “stakeholder involvement,” ie involving and involving people who will be affected by the change in the process of its creation. The well-known “change acceleration model” of GE, or CAPcalling it a “mobilizing commitment.” said Kotter An eight-step framework for change advocates doing this by “building a coalition” and “enlisting a volunteer army.” McKinsey has even done research to quantify the number of people who should be involved and concluded that at least 7% of employees should own aspects of a major change.
But what if the process of involving more people in the change actually slows things down instead of speeding them up? In my consulting experience, this is a frequent risk in mid-sized companies, especially those that place a premium on keeping employees fully informed about the business and developing a culture of “belonging.” When everyone feels they have a stake in the company (which is good), they also feel they should have a say in what changes. And since there is no way to push for changes that satisfy everyone, the engagement process can take too long or create decision paralysis.
Here’s a quick example: A tech company with about 1,800 people worldwide is experiencing a slowdown in its growth. Based on input from strategy consultants, the senior team agreed that there was a need to increase the company’s focus on selling a particular type of software to business clients. As part of the culture of keeping everyone abreast of new business developments, the CEO discussed this strategic goal in an all-hands meeting, with an overview of what this change could mean. -o. In the following weeks, many people joined the teams – in Product, Operations, Sales, and Marketing – to create more specific plans for increasing this type of business sales. Since all team members have an interest in protecting their jobs, budgets, and organizations, however, none of the plans include any ideas about what to stop or be delayed so that resources can be shifted to a new focus. So, while everyone in the company knows these business deals are important, there is little actual movement in that direction.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated example. A few months ago, I spoke with a business leader whose company had to stop doing customer transactions in one country due to political and regulatory pressures. He said they have assembled a large task force charged with creating a process for identifying the customers who will be affected, the financial implications for the company, and the technology support needed to “i- off” product access. However, the task force has struggled to reach consensus on what to do and how to do it. Sales are driving the migration of larger customers so that their business can be booked outside of the affected country, and they can retain revenue, but Operations is concerned that this will require several workarounds, each of which will need regulatory approval. team The product does not know if they can configure all their offerings in this way and they want time to do an analysis. Meanwhile, Finance is trying to determine the financial model that will determine the cutoff point where customers should migrate and what should not. In other words, they are trapped.
It’s easy to walk away from these examples thinking that high levels of employee involvement can be detrimental to change management. Maybe it’s easier for a senior executive, like the CEO, to just tell everyone what to do than to have a lot of cooks in the kitchen. The real issue, however, is not whether or not to involve more people – but how to involve them, and what role senior leaders maintain.
In the cases described here, senior leaders engage with many people in the early stages of shaping and planning change – a time when there is often a need to make difficult decisions. But the more people involved in making such decisions – each with a different opinion and affected in a different way – the more difficult it is to reach a conclusion. No matter how many of a “big hat” people wear, it’s human nature to look at decisions through the lens of whether they’re good or bad for you and your team.
To some extent this is also an issue of expectations. Getting a lot of opinions and perspectives early on is very important. This enriches the discussion and opens up new possibilities. But there is a difference between offering a view and being a decision maker; and that’s where mid-sized companies with a culture of engagement can struggle. Asking many people to evaluate, provide data, and participate in the discussion is not the same as making everyone a part of the decision. That should be done by a small team, usually the CEO and his executives. Then, once the decision has been made, the larger group can move on to figuring out how to do it most effectively. However, a senior person or team – whether the CEO or an executive owner – should be in charge of the execution because there are many small points of choice that also affect people in a different way. . This is an issue in both cases. Everyone knows what needs to be done in general – but figuring out how to make it happen requires a lot of decisions to be made about stopping current activities or making changes.
Principles to Remember When You’re About to Make a Big Change in Your Company
If you are considering major changes in your mid-sized company – and you have a culture of widespread engagement – here are some principles to keep in mind:
First, it is very clear whether you are engaging with people for the purpose of providing input or for making a decision.
If you want to make a decision, make it clear in advance that the executive sponsor or senior leader will have the final vote, especially if the broader team cannot reach a consensus. This is what happened at the end of the tech company that wanted to focus on business sales. If no major changes occur through a broad-based approach, the CEO works with a few other senior executives and staff to identify changes in priorities for the top group and give them goals that support the transitions. They also make small changes that put resources where they are most needed. Although not everyone was happy with these changes, they accepted them as necessary. In fact, many people say that these decisions should have been made earlier.
Second, ensure that a leader or sponsor remains deeply involved throughout the change process.
This is what happened, somewhat strangely, to the task force that shut down the business of a country. A few weeks after hearing that the task force was stuck, I learned that they disbanded the task force, set a date to stop doing business in the country, sent letters to their customers, and shut down the necessary systems. Done. No more debate. When I asked how this happened, I was told that a senior executive met with the task force and realized that the path they were taking required thousands of hours of staff time, delaying the “stop” date, infuriating the regulator, and likely cost more than any possible revenue savings. So, he told them to just set a date in the next two weeks and be done with it. Once everyone looked at it this way, it was a no-brainer.
Involving many people in change efforts is a critical element of change management. It widens the aperture of perspectives, creates a wider range of solutions, and increases the commitment that people need to do things differently. Expecting a broad group of stakeholders to all put aside their personal and functional agendas for the greater good, however, may be unrealistic. So as a senior leader, don’t expect this type of group to make tough decisions on their own. You need to do that, not just at the beginning, but throughout the entire change process.
