Systemic change management: key success factors

Many change management projects fail, to varying degrees depending on the complexity and size of the initiative. This raises the question of why.

The reason can be explained using a model for increasing performance: P = S x M. Performance arises from the interaction of systems and people. To be successful, change management must have an effect on both factors. Only then is an increase in performance ultimately achieved. In practice, however, the human factor is still too often disregarded, and the focus is only on systems.

This is also shown by a study by the German Gallup organisation, which examined the failure of change management projects. It names two findings: communication is poor, and the fears of those affected are not taken into account. Managers in particular bear this responsibility.

The study showed that the main reason for the failure of change management lies in how managers deal with change and the resulting consequences. Success depends less on the content of new processes than on the willingness of the people affected to change. Leadership is the decisive success factor in change management.

Shaping change requires methodological and personal competences more than specialist ones. Managers are still rather rarely aware of this, because such competences often take a back seat to specialist requirements in training and in company people development.

The approach in change management follows eight steps. First, goals are defined, then people and systems are assessed. Suitable interventions are sought, and the interventions are defined. Implementation is supported, and new patterns, procedures and models are anchored. Finally, the change is evaluated and improved.

Communication is the most important prerequisite for the success of a change process and a central task of managers. Communication is the actual work; communicating is the job of leadership.

To do justice to this task, leadership must be aware of five transfer barriers. Said does not mean heard. Said does not mean understood. Said does not mean agreed. Agreed does not mean applied. Applied does not mean maintained. To overcome these barriers, managers should observe five principles when communicating.

The first principle is comprehensive and honest communication. Spreading vague information or half-truths does not prevent resistance. It will hardly be possible to keep certain information under wraps. Employees feel all the more deceived when the whole truth comes to light. They feel betrayed and not taken seriously.

This gives rise to rumours about the company actually being in a much worse state. From this position, it costs the company and the manager a great deal of time and energy to motivate employees for the initiative, if this is still possible at all.

The second principle is understandable information. Initiators of a change are very deeply immersed in the subject. They often forget that employees do not have all this detailed information. It is necessary to inform them in detail about the situation and the need for change. It is precisely these details that matter greatly to employees and that are important in motivating them and getting them enthusiastic about the change.

The third principle is unambiguous information. To avoid misunderstandings and irritation, it is particularly important that all those responsible pass on the same information and thus convey unmistakable messages.

The fourth principle is immediate information. Comprehensive and honest information is usually not enough in the change management process. In such a phase, the rumour mill is particularly active, and dealing with it is a particular challenge. Even a small delay in the communication process can fuel rumours.

The reason: a delay in information means unresolved facts, and unresolved facts fuel uncertainty and fear in people. Rumours arise as a form of self-protection. Immediate, that is, timely information is therefore of great importance.

The fifth principle is pervasive information. All relevant facts decided at top management level can and must be communicated to employees. To ensure that the information flows smoothly down to the lowest level, so-called top-down deadlines can be agreed. By these deadlines, all employees must have been informed about certain topics. In this way, checkpoints are built in to verify that the processes are being followed.

The second success factor is attention to group dynamics. Many change management projects fail because they are planned only at the factual level. The relationship level and group dynamics are excluded.

Many of these projects have something in common. The proposed measures are theoretically detailed and cleanly derived from company key figures. With compelling logic, they promise significant improvements if they are followed. Despite this approach, projects fail again and again.

The reason lies in the fact-oriented approach. The people affected by these processes are expected to accept approaches that inevitably lead to resistance.

This approach comes about because many managers are overwhelmed when dealing with seemingly unpredictable factors such as emotions and group dynamics. Often people act as if these processes did not exist. Fears of loss and failure, rivalries and claims to power are excluded from change management processes, although they decisively influence the process.

There are two things behind this. On the one hand, there is a lack of ability to identify group dynamics and to deal with emotions. On the other, taking these facts into account often does not fit the manager’s self-image as a doer and driver.

The third success factor is the involvement of those affected. “Turning those affected into participants” has become the catchphrase of successful change management. However, this formula for success is often not yet fully implemented. One important reason is that the definition of who is affected often falls short.

If anyone is involved at all, it is the people who are directly and objectively immediately affected. Those affected indirectly or further downstream are often simply forgotten, because there is usually no adequate overall analysis of the change process and its consequences.

Another reason for a lack of involvement is that it takes a great deal of time. This is true. However, if one compares the total effort up to realisation, involving those affected is far more promising and less time-consuming than pushing things through single-handedly.

Managers also fear that involvement will create chaos in which nobody works any more. In practice, this fear is rarely confirmed. It is the manager’s task to design the process so that this does not happen. In addition, employees only want to be involved in the measures that affect them and to which they can make a meaningful contribution in line with their competences.

This insight has not yet become sufficiently established. Demotivation and resistance due to changes imposed from above therefore remain the order of the day. The task of leadership is to shape the process.

The fourth success factor is mastering the rules of the game. Every change brings a changeover that initially makes things harder for those involved. Established routines and movements no longer apply and have to be practised anew. The resulting resistance is normal and part of every change process. Chaos is a normal process in change management.

Many managers do not understand this normality. They regard resistance and teething problems in the changeover phase as failure. They immediately set about taking countermeasures and possibly changing the process again.

The manager’s task would instead be to seek dialogue with employees. They make clear to them why this process is so important and that teething problems are normal and accepted.

There is no way of avoiding these teething problems. It is therefore important to define the duration of the implementation phase precisely in order to counter uncertainty at all levels. Managers must be aware of this fact. They plan for teething problems in the change management process instead of lapsing into blind actionism.