A couple of weeks ago I shared a link on LinkedIn that...
Change fatigue is the No.1 emerging risk again this quarter. Time for some different thinking on whether big programmes of change are the optimal way to keep ahead? My research into change from the perspective of the people whose work is intended to change (not the usual change agent centric view) might be coming of age... https://lnkd.in/d_75UVs
Great that the post got more than 4000 views (quite amazing) but what I want to share here are really considered and important comments from three colleagues - all quite different - but all really valuable.
Guy Sorrill at Sysdoc.Thanks for this Ruth. I was having this very conversation with a colleague today. Portfolio view of change across an enterprise (from the people perspective) very much needed.
Dr Ruth Murray-WebsterDead right Guy - my experience is that embedding portfolio management in practice is tricky (getting senior leaders to give up personal goals of the good of the collective), but if you can crack it then smaller changes can happen and embed (and deliver value) rather than large scale, overly ambitious programmes that promise much but deliver little. Some other really valid points from others too about a) convincing senior leadership that this is the case (thanks Liz) , and b) the imperative to 'refreeze' after change - consolidating routines so they have embedded meaning which interestingly from my doctoral research is a prerequisite for future change (thanks Rod). Looking forward to an ongoing conversation through various means :
Rod SowdenCouldn't agree more Ruth. The original change theories like Lewin and the unfreeze move and refreeze model are still very relevant as people need time to adapt and become confident and competent at the new level. The problem is we don't refreeze, the current concepts of continual change are ignoring the fact we are still mark 1 human beings emotionally. I reckon this could be at the core of why the UK has some of the lowest productivity figures in the G20, we are rarely stable enough to be productive
Dr Ruth Murray-WebsterHey Rod, good to be talking. One finding from my doctoral research - not looked for but stumbled upon - was that organisation found it impossible to change because routines weren't 'frozen' in the first place. So I totally agree that we don't take time to refreeze. But because we haven't refrozen then future change is really difficult. Would value an ongoing conversation about this...
Liz Needham MA HRM, Chartered MCIPDThanks for sharing Ruth, I agree that we need to do more to put those impacted by change at the centre of what we do. We've just done a good job of that on a global CRM re-launch but it takes time and that often conflicts with business goals. We don't often value the longer-term impact as much as we should.
Dr Ruth Murray-WebsterThank you Liz and I agree. A major challenge for us all to get senior leaders to focus on making change work (i.e. embedding some value) rather than chasing the more benefit that can't be practically achieved because the change for the people involved needs time... Would value an ongoing conversation.