The times being what they are, organizational change is a big presence today. As much as top management likes to portray change as a path to greater effectiveness and efficiency, to employees it often has a different meaning. Layoffs, losing colleagues, and new and (not necessarily improved) ways to work may be standard associations as well.

The percentage of actual successful change processes is small. Some make no difference whatsoever, some lead to small change, and a select few are successful. This isn’t news, and still organizations spend millions on change projects using the same consultants and the same methods. Top-Down controlled short-term thinking.

A Gap in Perception

While studying at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology I was part of a project called Healthy Change Processes. Though based in Norway, I believe the findings are at least partly applicable in change initiatives outside our Northern borders as well. The project focused on identifying key factors related to successful organizational change.

The most important finding in my opinion was a strong need for everyone to understand the intention of the change initiative. Why? Because whether we talked to large organizations or small businesses, we found a lack of communication between top management and the rest of the employees. CEOs would explain how everyone was excited about the changes that were being made and what the organization would look like, knowing that we would interview some of their employees afterwards. The employees would then tell us how the changes felt forced upon them, and that they did not fully understand why they were moving in the direction they were.

I truly believe that the CEOs really believed their own perception of the change processes were shared, despite being totally off the mark.

Weak Analysis and a Lack of Awareness

My perception is that the reaction of employees in many cases is forgotten, or taken too lightly during the planning and analysis stage of the process. Upper management has found a solution they believe in, and conflicting views are seen as less important than they really are, or possibly disregarded in full.

With a lack of awareness to the to the voices in opposition, the organization dives head first into the change processes, and as more and more money is spent on the initiative, it gets harder and harder to change directions, take a step or two back, or stop the process altogether.

Applying the Quick-Fix

Quick-Fixing consists of the idea that organizational change can be done really fast, and at a low cost. This is especially prevalent in Western cultures, where organizations want to think ahead six months rather than, say, two years. The problem with short-term change is they are often not thought through. Seth Godin’s post on Bear-Shaving has some examples I think fit the bill.

Some of the largest consulting companies boast of turning organizations around in as little as four months. Though possible on paper, what about the people actually being affected by the change processes. Add to that a lack of understanding regarding the intention of the change (many consultant companies also make it a point to work with top management only, leaving the rest of the organization possibly without a voice), and the process just got that much tougher.

Though long-term thinking at the onset seems more expensive it can pay off. People differ greatly from one another, and their reaction to working differently, taking on new roles, losing colleagues and/or fearing for their jobs during downsizing can lead to a state of organizational fight-or-flight. So in conclusion my thoughts are that while there at times is a need for fast (and sometimes) radical change, you still need to make sure you have your people on board, and see the reasons and intentions clearly.

Want more info:
•    For an overview and info on the Healthy Change Processes project (English)
•    Sunne Omstillingsprosesser (Norwegian description, but with a selection of references)