Communication and empathy. Organizations going through change survive the challenges when they have an open system of communication.
It is also important to understand that each person will go through the change in their own pace. We must be empathetic to the person initiating the change as well as to those affected by the change. Either end is a lot of work and stress.
Manage the transition – remember it’s not all about moving logistics. Its about affecting people.

1. Communicate openly and consistently (i.e. at all stages of the change process)

2. Let employees know why the change is happening and be upfront with them in how it will impact them in their roles

3. Go in stages. If the entire change is communicated as just one large end-goal, it is destined to fail. If it is separated into a series of small achievable changes, it will be easier to demonstrate successes and thus keep the team engaged in the process (be sure to communicate these small victories, and celebrate them with the team!).

4. More communication! Just announcing the process at the beginning is not enough. It needs to be re-addresses at each step of the process, so the goals and steps and buy-in are not forgotten or lost.

Using this process or one similar, it will be easier to maintain trust from the people within the organization throughout what is likely to be a challenging time. This trust will lead to better chances of success.

Here is my take on things. Change is something that has to grow organically through a company, but have real buy in from the top. In other words, mandated top down change does not work and organic grass roots change without corporate buy in goes no where.

There needs to be the identity of what is facilitating the need for change. What is the route problem the organization is facing that causes people to want to change. Slumping sales is not a problem, it is an effect of the route cause. The cause could be inferior product, lack of customer service or other items of this ilk.

Once that route cause or causes have been determined, their needs to be real want at all levels to fix the problem. A glitsy marketing campaign may shift views of the company in the short term, but if the underlying cause is still present, there will be no long term success.

What works for me in this situation, Earl, is to break the revolution down into many small, safe evolutions. It takes a little more work to plan and project manage each of the evolutions, but the results usually speak for themselves. That’s why people who’ve worked with me come to me when they need to make a major change in how business is done and they aren’t sure how to proceed or who to trust.

By teaching them to have empathy toward their employees

Dr. Smith,

The first question to ask is, “why do we need to make the change?” If there is not a succinct answer to this question for all levels of the organization, there is a threat of failure to get buy-in. It can be a very complex implementation, but even the complex must be boiled down to something simple and logical to the majority of the organization.

Then, it is important to ask, “can we affect this change, given our available resources?” If the answer is no, then, “can we obtain the resources needed to make the change?”

If we physically can change, then it becomes a matter of breaking the large change into smaller “bite-sized” pieces that are easier for people to swallow.

The implementation of the process is dictated by the time constraints to bring the pieces into place and the ability for continuity of service and quality. If service continuity/product quality is not threatened by the implementation process itself, I believe that a slower methodical process is justified to help ease people into the transition. However, if there is the potential for consumer impact, then keeping close to the constraints dictated by the implementation process itself is important; the “buy-in” to the change may be fought more in this case, but is a necessary evil to ensure quality delivery to consumers.

Well said till now.

I would like to add one more point here…
If BPM / ERP has implemented then it would be more helpfull to adapt change more quickly

In my experience there are some important factors in undertaking change successfully. The first is a clear commitment by the management team to make the change. I’ve seen many change efforts self-destruct because members of the team agreed publicly but worked against the change privately. People can tell what’s actualy going on by what their leaders do more than say. The leader of the change can’t be just one person. If that person leaves, the change stops. Second, the reason for the change and how it will be implemented must be clearly communicated to those affected. It’s best to get them involved in working out the change process so they feel part of the change and take ownership of making the change and understand its impact. Lastly, the entire change activity must be clearly communicated to stakeholders, even if they aren’t directly affected. This is an ongoing activity to explain why the change is being made, what is happening at different parts of the change programme, and how people are responding to the change. I belive that with leadership, involvement and communication, change can be a very beneficial activity for any organisation.

Chiming in…

Following Marc’s thoughts, I have a talk (speech? lecture?) that I deliver to groups on “Why Businesses Fail” or alternatively, “Why Businesses Succeed”; same stuff, just adjusting the material to either negative or positive to suit the audience.

Admittedly, it’s a shock speech, but it’s based on what I see continually. There are lots of “reasons” why businesses fail. It’s easy (and ego sparing) to blame the economy, lack of funds, poor quality employees, etc.

However, in my opinion, the #1 reason for business failure is that the owner or executives at the helm refuse to ask for help. Or if they do, typically as a last resort, they refuse to implement the suggestions they receive after asking. In my experience, every other symptom of business failure can be traced back to this one reason.

When I am doing an initial consult with a client, I always stress the need to be willing to change the way they’re doing business. I don’t know what the changes will need to be (yet), but I emphasize that continuing to do business in the same manner is going to continue to reap the same downhill results.

Usually, the leadership gives an intellectual assent, but withholds emotional agreement, even though they may not realize it. Emotional agreements would involve consent to remove, if necessary, the “sacred cows” present in any organization.

In working through the necessary process changes, I can always tell when I’ve found and gored the sacred cow, because the cow bellows loudly. “We’ve always!….We’ve never!….It’s a tradition!…” you get the idea.

Some clients can’t get past the need to change the practices that are dragging them down, subcontiously (sp?) deciding to preserve the sacred cow (“It’s who we are!”) rather than change their corporate ways, at the price of going out of business.

The results are entirely predictable. The marketplace is unforgiving for those who refuse to adapt to its changing ways…

Best,
Dan