Tag Archives: John Kotter

Don’t Listen to These Three Change Consultant Recommendations

Don't Listen to These Three Change Consultant Recommendations

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

The practice of change management is a relatively young discipline. It got its start in 1983, when a McKinsey consultant Julien Phillips published a paper in the journal, Human Resource Management. His ideas became McKinsey’s first change management model that it sold to clients and set the stage for much that came afterward.

Phillips’ work kicked off a number of similar approaches such as Kotter’s 8-step model and the Prosci ADKAR model and an industry was born. Today, hordes of “change consultants” ply their craft working to communicate transformational ideas to inspire change. The results, unfortunately, have been rather dismal.

The simple truth is that change rarely fails because people don’t understand it, but that it is actively sabotaged by those who, for whatever reason, oppose it. That’s why any change strategy that depends on persuasion is bound to fail. The truth is that if you want to bring change about you need to identify those who believe in it and empower them to succeed.

1. Create A Sense Of Urgency Around Change

One of the basic tenets of change management that dates back to Phillips’ original paper is that you need to create a “sense of urgency” around change. So change leaders work to gain approval for a sizable budget as a sign of institutional commitment, recruit high-profile executives, arrange a big “kick-off” meeting and look to move fast and gain scale.

That may work for a conventional project, but for something that’s truly transformational, it’s a sure path to failure. The problem is that if a change is important and has real potential to impact what people believe and what they do, there will always be those who will hate it and they will work to undermine it in ways that are dishonest, underhanded and deceptive.

Starting off with a “big bang” can often unwittingly aid these efforts. Large scale change of any kind, even if the net effect is overwhelmingly positive, always causes some disruption. So appearing to work to overpower, rather than to attract, others can feed into the atmosphere of fear and loathing that opponents of change want to create. It also gives the opponents of change a head start to kill change before it really even starts.

A much better approach is to work to empower small groups, loosely connected, united by a shared purpose. For example, when Wyeth Pharmaceuticals began its shift to lean manufacturing, it started with a single team at a single plant, but led to a 25% reduction of costs across 25 sites encompassing 17,000 employees.

2. Start With A Quick, Easy Win

Another thing that change consultants regularly recommend is going for a “quick and easy win” in order to build momentum and establish credibility. The problem is that if the “win” isn’t meaningful, it will do little to drive change forward. In fact, touting a meaningless and irrelevant pseudo-accomplishment can make change leaders look out-of-touch and impractical.

A much more effective strategy is to start with a keystone change that represents a concrete and tangible goal, involves multiple stakeholders and paves the way for future change. That’s how you can begin to build real traction. While the impact of that early keystone change might be limited, a small, but meaningful, success can show what’s possible.

Consider PxG, a process improvement initiative at Procter & Gamble. It started out when three young executives set out to improve a single process. It wasn’t quick or easy. In fact, it took months of hard work. Nevertheless, they were able to transform a bottleneck that held up projects for weeks into a streamlined procedure that is completed in mere hours.

In a similar vein, when the global data giant Experian sought to transform itself into a cloud-based enterprise, it started with internal API’s that were much less risky than those that allowed access to outsiders. These weren’t really that much simpler or easier than public API’s, but showed the potential of cloud technology.

The truth is that sometimes you need to go slow in order to go fast. Transformation is not a linear process, but accelerates as it gains momentum. It pays to build your change effort on solid ground, rather than trying to lurch forward. Nothing slows you down more than a setback.

3. Prepare A Stakeholder Map

In any change process, a variety of stakeholders will have concerns. So consultants often suggest mapping the various stakeholders in terms of their level of enthusiasm, engagement, power to influence and other parameters. The idea is that by categorizing and cataloguing, you can better understand the forces at play.

This type of approach makes for impressive looking PowerPoint decks and intellectually appealing reports, but does little to achieve real change. The truth is that what most influences stakeholders are other stakeholders. Slicing and dicing them eighteen different ways isn’t going to do much more than confuse the situation.

However, for decades social and political movements have used tools such as the Spectrum of Allies and the Pillars of Support to change entire societies and they are just as effective in organizational transformations. Essentially, the idea is to divide stakeholders into two categories: constituencies and institutions (or those who wield institutional power).

So to transform education, you might mobilize support from parents, teachers and students to influence school boards, administrators and teachers unions to make changes. In a corporate context, you might want to mobilize groups of employees, customers and other constituencies to influence internal and external institutions such as senior leaders, the media, professional associations, regulators, labor unions etc.

The point is that you are always mobilizing somebody to influence something. Pure mobilization is nothing more than rabble rousing. Working quietly behind closed doors leaves you vulnerable to an uprising among the rank and file. Building support among constituencies can not only influence those with institutional power to act, it builds change on solid ground.

Focusing On The 25% That Matters

There is an inherent flaw in human nature that has endowed us with a burning desire to convince skeptics. So it shouldn’t be surprising that change consultants focus on persuasion. Nothing validates a high fee like some clever wordsmithing designed to persuade those hostile to the ideas of those paying the bill.

Yet anybody who has ever been married or had children knows how difficult it can be to convince even a single person of something they don’t want to be convinced of. To set out to persuade hundreds—or even thousands—that they should adopt an idea that they are inherently hostile to is not only hubris, but incredibly foolish.

It is also unnecessary. Scientific research suggests that the tipping point for change is only a 25% minority. Once a quarter of the people involved become committed to change, the rest will largely go along. So there is no need to convince skeptics. Your time and effort will be much better spent helping those who are enthusiastic about change to make it succeed.

That’s what the change consultants get wrong. You don’t “manage” change. You empower it by enabling those who believe in it to show it can work and then bringing in others who can bring in others still. The truth is that you don’t need a clever slogan to bring change about, you need a network. That’s how you create a movement that drives transformation.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credits: Pexels

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Change Management Team Dynamics

Change Management Team Dynamics

GUEST POST from Stefan Lindegaard

As the pace of change accelerates and becomes more encompassing, teams stand as the backbone of a successful organization. To stay ahead, teams must not only adapt to change but also leverage it to their advantage.

So, how do we harness change management to ensure our teams remain robust and agile through ongoing transformations and uncertainties?

By integrating team dynamics with change management, we aim to transform not only how teams operate but also how individuals perceive and engage with change.

That’s why I’m developing the Team Dynamics for Change Management Framework, and I invite your feedback and perspectives on it.

Understanding Change Management:

Change Management is the structured approach to transitioning teams or organizations from their current state to a desired future state. It’s about guiding and supporting individuals through this transition to realize lasting benefits. A significant part of this involves understanding people – their perceptions of change and how best to aid them through it.

Defining Team Dynamics:

Team dynamics are the behavioral and psychological forces at play within a group, profoundly influencing its direction and overall performance. These forces spring from individual personalities, relationships, roles, and the environment the team operates within. They mold the team’s interactions, communication patterns, collaborative efforts, and conflict resolutions.

Why a Framework for This Makes Sense

While numerous change management models cater to organizational or individual change, few focus directly on the unique behaviors and interactions within teams.

Given the pivotal role of teams, it’s essential to have an approach that marries the principles of change management with the realities of team dynamics.

Inspiration & Roots:

Two groundbreaking models serve as the foundational inspiration for this approach:

Kotter’s 8-Step Process for Leading Change: Developed by Harvard Business School Professor John Kotter, this model provides a step-by-step strategy for organizational change. Its emphasis on creating urgency, building a guiding coalition, and embedding new approaches makes it a revered guide in change management.

ADKAR Model: Introduced by Prosci, a global leader in change management solutions, this model emphasizes the individual’s journey through change. Its focus on Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement captures the stages of personal transition during organizational shifts.

Choosing these models as the foundation is due to their robust, time-tested strategies, which I believe can be tailored to address team dynamics specifically.

Change Curve

Eight (8) Elements for the Team Dynamics for Change Management Framework

1. Assessing Team Dynamics:

Objective: Understand the current state and behaviors within the team.

Rationale: Before any change management strategy can be effectively implemented, there’s a need to understand the present dynamics of the team. This sets the foundation for everything that follows.

2. Understanding Individual Aspirations (WIIFM):

Objective: Recognize and validate the personal drivers and motivations of each team member.

Rationale: Following the assessment of team dynamics, it’s critical to delve deeper into individual motivations. Understanding the “what’s in it for me?” for every team member will influence and enrich subsequent steps, ensuring changes resonate on a personal level.

3. Evaluating Team Change Readiness:

Objective: Gauge the team’s willingness and preparation for change, considering both collective and individual motivations.

Rationale: Once the team dynamics and individual aspirations are clear, it’s pivotal to measure the readiness for change, which will be greatly influenced by the alignment (or lack thereof) between team goals and personal drivers.

4. Formulating a Shared Vision:

Objective: Create a unified direction for the team that also respects individual aspirations.

Rationale: Armed with insights from previous steps, crafting a shared vision becomes more feasible and grounded. This vision will better reflect the aspirations of the team as a whole and its individual members.

5. Enhancing Communication & Collaboration:

Objective: Foster positive and efficient team interactions.

Rationale: With a clear vision in place, the focus can shift to enhancing the ways team members interact, ensuring that individual aspirations and the collective vision are continually in dialogue.

6. Implementing Change & Skill Development:

Objective: Facilitate the smooth adoption of new practices while building necessary skills.

Rationale: Changes can now be introduced and executed, backed by a well-understood team dynamic and vision, and supported by individual motivations.

7. Feedback & Continuous Improvement:

Objective: Monitor the impact of the changes and refine as necessary.

Rationale: As changes are implemented, it’s essential to keep the channels of feedback open. Here, the alignment between team goals and individual motivations will be rechecked and fine-tuned.

8. Celebrating Success & Expanding Impact:

Objective: Recognize achievements and share the team’s journey with a wider audience.

Rationale: Concluding with acknowledgment reinforces the importance of both the collective endeavor and individual contributions. Celebrations serve as reminders of the harmony between team goals and personal aspirations.

What’s in it for Teams:

  • A clearer path through organizational changes.
  • Enhanced trust, teamwork, and collaboration.
  • Fewer conflicts and more transparent communication channels.
  • Readiness for upcoming challenges.
  • Foster an environment where everyone thrives.
  • Provides individuals clarity on their roles, highlighting the unique value they bring to the organization, reducing uncertainty.

Help develop our framework? Get a free e-book!

I’m in the process of refining this framework and would greatly value your perspectives. If you have insights, feedback to offer or questions to ask, please get in touch. Let’s work together to redefine how teams adapt to change. I will soon turn this into a free e-book to share the learning.

Image Credit: Stefan Lindegaard, Unsplash

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Aligning Vision and Execution in Change Management

Aligning Vision and Execution in Change Management

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In the ever-evolving landscape of modern business, the ability to implement effective change management strategies stands as a crucial determinant of an organization’s success. At its core, change management is not just about overseeing transitions; it’s about crafting a vision for the future and ensuring that vision is executed in alignment with organizational goals. But alignment between vision and execution is easier said than done, requiring a meticulous blend of strategic foresight and operational ruthlessness. In this article, we explore how organizations can better align their vision and execution, using compelling case studies to illustrate key points.

The Importance of Alignment in Change Management

Imagine a symphony orchestra preparing for a performance without a conductor. Each musician may be skilled and dedicated, yet without someone to align individual performances, the result would be cacophonous rather than harmonious. Similarly, in organizations, an unaligned approach to change can lead to fragmented efforts, wasted resources, and unmet goals. Alignment ensures that every team member, resource, and process reflects the broader vision, fostering synergistic efforts toward common objectives.

Case Study 1: The Boeing 787 Dreamliner Project

Few change initiatives capture the imagination and exceed complexity like Boeing’s development of the 787 Dreamliner. The bold vision was to create an aircraft that would revolutionize air travel through unprecedented fuel efficiency and passenger comfort. However, the execution proved challenging and serves as a seminal example of the pitfalls of misalignment.

Initially, Boeing’s vision for the 787 was ambitious; they sought to integrate cutting-edge technology and materials, such as composite materials, at a scale never before attempted. The intention was to set new standards and transform the industry. However, execution faltered due to over-reliance on a global network of suppliers combined with the insufficient coordination and oversight mechanisms. Misalignment occurred because the vision did not translate effectively into the operational plans needed for execution. Substantial delays and cost overruns ensued, culminating in the project’s delay by three years and a multi-billion-dollar budget overrun.

The key takeaway from Boeing’s experience is the critical need for effective synchronization between strategic vision and operational execution. To achieve success, organizations must not only define an inspiring vision but also establish a practical roadmap to carry it out. This requires clear communication of roles, expectations, and timelines so that all stakeholders work cohesively towards the shared vision.

Case Study 2: Kotter’s Change Model at Google

Contrast Boeing’s struggles with Google’s relatively smooth adoption of Kotter’s change management model during the rollout of its internal Work-from-Anywhere (WFA) policy. In response to employee feedback and the changing dynamics of workplace flexibility post-pandemic, Google implemented a new telecommuting structure that adhered closely to an established change framework for seamless results.

Google began by communicating a strong vision—a future where work would cater more closely to the individual needs of employees while optimizing productivity. This vision was aligned from the top down, with Google’s leaders embodying the principles being communicated. Execution hinged upon methodical adherence to Kotter’s Change Management principles, including creating the urgency, forming a guiding coalition, and generating early wins to maintain momentum.

By leveraging these principles, Google ensured that all layers of management were engaged and empowered to drive change. Monitoring progress was integral; Google utilized both quantitative KPIs and qualitative employee feedback to iteratively refine and reinforce its approach. The result was a successful shift towards a flexible work model, with minimal disruption and positive employee feedback.

Strategies for Successful Alignment

Reflecting on both successes and setbacks, several strategies emerge for aligning vision and execution:

  1. Clear Communication: Articulate the strategic vision in a way that resonates with every employee from the top levels of management to front-line workers. Use storytelling to connect emotionally with stakeholders.
  2. Empowerment and Engagement: Ensure every team is empowered to make decisions within their domain, fostering a sense of ownership and accountability.
  3. Agility and Adaptation: Build mechanisms for feedback and learning into your change process, allowing you to pivot swiftly when seniors identify mis-alignments or changing conditions.
  4. Technology Leverage: Use technological solutions for tracking, coordinating, and reporting progress in real-time, providing visibility across all levels of the organization.
  5. Leader Involvement: Ensure leaders are both champions of the vision and active participants in its execution, modeling the behaviors and mindsets desired.

Conclusion

Aligning vision and execution is not a one-time task but an ongoing, iterative process that requires diligence, communication, and genuine commitment from all organizational levels. As organizations navigate the complexities of the digital age, those that master this alignment will not just survive but thrive, setting new benchmarks in their industries. The case studies of Boeing and Google illustrate that while the road may be riddled with challenges, transformative success is achievable when vision and execution walk hand in hand.

Extra Extra: Because innovation is all about change, Braden Kelley’s human-centered change methodology and tools are the best way to plan and execute the changes necessary to support your innovation and transformation efforts — all while literally getting everyone all on the same page for change. Find out more about the methodology and tools, including the book Charting Change by following the link. Be sure and download the TEN FREE TOOLS while you’re here.

Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Change Management Frameworks – Which is Right for Your Organization?

Change Management Frameworks - Which is Right for Your Organization?

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

In the fast-paced environment of today’s business world, organizations must continuously adapt to survive and thrive. Selecting the right change management framework can make the difference between success and failure when launching initiatives. As a thought leader in human-centered change and innovation, I am excited to guide you in choosing the framework that’s best for your organization.

The Importance of Change Management Frameworks

Change management frameworks provide a structured approach to transitioning individuals, teams, and organizations from a current state to a desired future state. They help minimize resistance, ensure effective communication, and enhance engagement and adoption of new initiatives.

Popular Change Management Frameworks

  • Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model: A comprehensive approach that outlines eight critical steps to implement change successfully.
  • Lewin’s Change Management Model: A three-stage approach of Unfreezing, Changing, and Refreezing.
  • McKinsey 7-S Framework: Incorporates a holistic view of organizational change by examining seven interdependent elements.
  • Bridges Transition Model: Focuses on the psychological transition of individuals to adopt change.
  • Braden Kelley’s Change Planning Toolkit: A unique, visual set of tools designed to accelerate adoption, lower risks, and deliver change faster. His human-centered change approach with more than 70 tools for practitioners is a great way to get your change or transformation initiative off to the right start.

Factors to Consider When Choosing a Framework

Organizations should consider the scale of change, the organization’s culture, leadership, and readiness, and how individuals in the organization typically react to change. Each framework offers unique strengths, and aligning these with your organization’s needs will result in a smoother transformation journey.

Case Study 1: Kotter’s 8-Step Model in a Financial Services Firm

Background

A mid-sized financial services firm, FutureFinance, needed to implement a new customer relationship management (CRM) system to improve client interactions and streamline processes.

Challenges

The organization’s disparate departments often worked in silos, causing inefficiencies and resistance to centralized solutions. Additionally, employees were skeptical about the time and effort needed to transition to a new system.

Implementation

FutureFinance adopted Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model. They began by creating a sense of urgency around the inefficiencies and lost opportunities due to the current disjointed approach. A guiding coalition was formed with top executives and influential department heads. A clear vision and strategy for the CRM implementation were developed and communicated throughout the firm. Short-term wins were identified, such as improving specific client processes, to demonstrate benefits early in the transition.

Outcome

Within twelve months, FutureFinance saw a significant improvement in customer satisfaction scores and a reduction in process duplication. By celebrating early wins and embedding new practices into the culture, the firm successfully completed the transition and achieved better cross-department collaboration.

Case Study 2: ADKAR Model in a Tech Startup

Background

A tech startup, Let’s Innovate, aimed to implement a new project management software to enhance efficiency and collaboration across its distributed teams.

Challenges

The company faced resistance as team members were comfortable with their existing processes, and there was limited buy-in for the new software tool.

Implementation

Let’s Innovate selected the ADKAR Model focusing on individual change to tackle these challenges. The process began with workshops to raise awareness and highlight the benefits of the new software (Awareness & Desire). Training sessions were organized to build the necessary skills (Knowledge & Ability), followed by regular feedback loops and performance incentives to reinforce the adoption (Reinforcement).

Outcome

The shift was remarkably successful, leading to an increase in project completion rates by 30% within six months, along with enhanced team collaboration and satisfaction.

Conclusion

Choosing the right change management framework requires understanding your organization’s unique challenges and needs. Whether it’s the structured approach of Kotter’s 8-Step Model or the individual-focused ADKAR Model, the key is to align the approach with the organizational context for maximum impact. Embrace change as an ongoing journey, with each stage offering valuable insights for future growth and transformation. And remember, it all starts with a strong change planning effort upfront and Braden Kelley’s Change Planning Toolkit™ is the best way to make that happen.

SPECIAL BONUS: The very best change planners use a visual, collaborative approach to create their deliverables. A methodology and tools like those in Change Planning Toolkit™ can empower anyone to become great change planners themselves.

Image credit: Unsplash

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Change Management Needs to Change

Change Management Needs to Change

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

In 1983, McKinsey consultant Julien Phillips published a paper in the journal, Human Resource Management, that described an ‘adoption penalty’ for firms that didn’t adapt to changes in the marketplace quickly enough. His ideas became McKinsey’s first change management model that it sold to clients.

But consider that research shows in 1975, during the period Phillips studied, 83% of the average US corporation’s assets were tangible assets, such as plant, machinery and buildings, while by 2015, 84% of corporate assets were intangible, such as licenses, patents and research. Clearly, that changes how we need to approach transformation.

When your assets are tangible, change is about making strategic decisions, such as building factories, buying new equipment and so on. Yet when your assets are intangible, change is connected to people—what they believe, how they think and how they act. That’s a very different matter and we need to reexamine how we approach transformation and change.

The Persuasion Model Of Change

Phillips’ point of reference for his paper on organizational change was a comparison of two companies, NCR and Burroughs, and how they adapted to changes in their industry between 1960 and 1975. Phillips was able to show that during that time, NCR paid a high price for its inability to adapt to change while it’s competitor, Burroughs prospered.

He then used that example to outline a general four-part model for change:

  • Creating a sense of concern
  • Developing a specific commitment to change
  • Pushing for major change
  • Reinforcing and consolidating the new course

Phillips’ work kicked off a number of similar approaches, the most famous of which is probably Kotter’s 8-step model. Yet despite the variations, the all follow a similar pattern. First you need to create a sense of urgency, then you devise a vision for change, communicate the need for it effectively and convince others to go along.

The fundamental assumption of these models, is that if people understand the change that you seek, they will happily go along. Yet my research indicates exactly the opposite. In fact, it turns out that people don’t like change and will often work actively to undermine it. Merely trying to be more persuasive is unlikely get you very far.

This is even more true when the target of the change is people themselves than when the change involves some sort of strategic asset. That’s probably why more recent research from McKinsey has found that only 26% of organizational transformations succeed.

Shifting From Hierarchies To Networks

Clearly, the types of assets that make up an enterprise aren’t the only thing that has changed over the past half-century. The structure of our organizations has also shifted considerably. The firms of Phillips’ and Kotter’s era were vlargely hierarchical. Strategic decisions were made at the top and carried out by others below.

Yet there is significant evidence that suggests that networks outperform hierarchies. For example, in Regional Advantage AnnaLee Saxenian explains that Boston-based technology firms, such as DEC and Data General, were vertically integrated and bound employees through non-compete contracts. Their Silicon Valley competitors such as Hewlett Packard and Sun Microsystems, on the other hand, embraced open technologies, built alliances and allowed their people to job hop.

The Boston-based companies, which dominated the microcomputer industry, were considered to be very well managed, highly efficient and innovative firms. However, when technology shifted away from microcomputers, their highly stable, vertical-integrated structure was completely cut off from the knowledge they would need to compete. The highly connected Silicon Valley firms, on the other hand, thrived.

Studies have found similar patterns in the German auto industry, among currency traders and even in Broadway plays. Wherever we see significant change today, it tends to happen side-to-side in networks rather than top-down in hierarchies.

Flipping The Model

When Barry Libenson first arrived at Experian as Global CIO in 2015, he knew that the job would be a challenge. As one of the world’s largest data companies, with leading positions in the credit, automotive and healthcare markets, the CIO’s role is especially crucial for driving the business. He was also new to the industry and needed to build a learning curve quickly.

So he devoted his first few months at the firm to looking around, talking to people and taking the measure of the place. “I especially wanted to see what our customers had on their roadmap for the next 12-24 months,” he told me and everywhere he went he heard the same thing. They wanted access to real-time data.

As an experienced CIO, Libenson knew a cloud computing architecture could solve that problem, but concerns that would need to be addressed. First, many insiders had concerns that moving from batched processed credit reports to real-time access would undermine Experian’s business model.. There were concerns about cybersecurity. The move would also necessitate a shift to agile product management, which would be controversial.

As CIO, Libenson had a lot of clout and could have, as traditional change management models suggest, created a “sense of urgency” among his fellow senior executives and then gotten a commitment to the change he sought. After the decision had been made, they then would have been able to design a communication campaign to persuade 16,000 employees that the change was a good one. The evidence suggests that effort would have failed.

Instead, he flipped the model and began working with a small team that was already enthusiastic about the move. He created an “API Center of Excellence” to help willing project managers to learn agile development and launch cloud-enabled products. After about a year, the program had gained significant traction and after three years the transformation to the cloud was complete.

Becoming The Change That You Want To See

The practice of change management got its start because businesses needed to adapt. The shift that Burroughs made to electronics was no small thing. Investments needed to be made in equipment, technology, training, marketing and so on. That required a multi-year commitment. Its competitor, NCR, was unable or unwilling to change and paid a dear price for it.

Yet change today looks much more like Experian’s shift to the cloud than it does Burroughs’ move into electronics. It’s hard, if not impossible, to persuade a product manager to make a shift if she’s convinced it will kill her business model, just it’s hard to get a project manager to adopt agile methodologies if she feels she’s been successful with more traditional methods. .

Libenson succeeded at Experian not because he was more persuasive, but because he had a better plan. Instead of trying to convince everyone at once, he focused his efforts on empowering those that were already enthusiastic. As their efforts became successful, others joined them and the program gathered steam. Those that couldn’t keep up got left behind.

The truth is that today we can’t transform organizations unless we transform the people in them and that’s why change management has got to change. It is no longer enough to simply communicate decisions made at the top. Rather, we need to put people at the center and empower them to succeed.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: Pexels

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

The Top 5 Change Leadership Models Every Leader Should Know

The Top 5 Change Leadership Models Every Leader Should Know

GUEST POST from Chateau G Pato

Change leadership is a vital aspect of any organization’s success. It involves guiding and influencing the strategic transformation within companies to ensure they remain competitive and relevant. Here, we explore the top five change leadership models that have proven effective in various organizational settings, accompanied by two case studies that illustrate these models in action.

1. Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model

Developed by Harvard Business School professor John Kotter, this model provides a comprehensive step-by-step approach to implementing successful change. It emphasizes the importance of creating a sense of urgency, forming a powerful coalition, and generating short-term wins to maintain momentum1.

2. Lewin’s Change Management Model

Kurt Lewin’s model is one of the founding frameworks of change management. It’s built on the concept that change involves three stages: Unfreezing, Changing, and Refreezing. This model is particularly useful for understanding the human aspect of change and the need for a structured approach1.

3. McKinsey’s 7-S Model

The McKinsey 7-S model focuses on seven internal elements of an organization that need to be aligned for successful change: Strategy, Structure, Systems, Shared Values, Skills, Style, and Staff. It’s a holistic approach that considers both hard and soft aspects of the organization1.

4. Braden Kelley’s Flow of Change Model v1.5

According to Braden Kelley, “achieving successful change is a complex undertaking, that we must make a more human process so that it is less overwhelming for those most affected by it and for change leaders and planners as well. Change Leaders can simplify change in certain ways, but they can’t make it simple.”

When you see his model in the best-selling book Charting Change (now in its Second Edition), you will notice that there are not three, but eleven different distinct stages to strike the proper balance between simplicity and complexity. Braden Kelley highlights in the model that the Disequilibrium stage is where many change efforts fail. According to Kelley, “The organization has begun ending the old way of doing things (and potentially even celebrated that ending) and has tried doing things the new way. This leads to a feeling of disequilibrium in most people as they determine whether the new way is better and decide whether they feel justified in continuing to resist the new way or whether to acclimate to doing things the new way.”

People who license the Change Planning Toolkit get access to the Flow of Change Model v1.5 Worksheet and the ability to track the Triple-T Metric (Time to Transform) over time for equivalent size change initiatives to see whether their change realization efficiency is accelerating or not across the eleven stages.

5. The Kubler-Ross Change Curve

Based on the stages of grief, this model applies the emotional journey to organizational change. It helps leaders understand employee resistance to change and the emotional transition needed to accept new ways of working.

Case Study 1: Adobe’s Transformation of HR Functions

Adobe’s shift from traditional software sales to a cloud-based subscription model required a significant change in their HR functions. They applied the 7-S framework to align their internal strategies and structures with their new business model, leading to a successful transformation.

Case Study 2: Barclays Bank’s Change in Business Practices

Barclays Bank underwent a major shift in its ways of doing business to adapt to the digital age. They utilized Lewin’s model to unfreeze old habits, introduce new digital banking practices, and refreeze the new processes into the company culture, resulting in improved customer satisfaction and operational efficiency.

Conclusion

Understanding and applying these change leadership models can significantly enhance a leader’s ability to steer their organization through the complexities of change. The case studies of Adobe and Barclays Bank serve as exemplary instances of how theoretical models can translate into practical success.

SPECIAL BONUS: Futurology is not fortune telling. Futurists use a scientific approach to create their deliverables, but a methodology and tools like those in FutureHacking™ can empower anyone to engage in futurology themselves.

Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.