Change Management and Effectively Managing Change.

The Challenges of Managing Change.

Six Sigma is all about change and managing change. We all want improved results it is just the challenge of making the changes and managing change necessary for the improved results that present the challenges. For some managers the changes brought by Six Sigma can present a challenge to their normal management approach. Only a few managers have a thought out change management process.

With six sigma decisions and changes are based on data and statistical analysis of that data rather than “I think” or “I feel”. Managing change based on fact requires analysis and not emotional reaction. That does not say that in managing change emotions and feelings are not important -- in fact the opposite is the norm. All people are emotional beings and managing change requires consideration of those emotions and reactions.

One of the most important tasks in managing change is an analysis of the various stakeholders impacted by the change. Without an understanding of how to manage change even the best plan can go awry. The law of unintended consequences can take over and what may have been necessary and positive change can result in very destructive results.


When there is no Change Management Process results can be quite different than those intended.

As an example of how not to manage change:




Destruction of a World Class Training Organization

Like many companies back in the day (One of the “in terms” today is to say “back in the day” when referring to the past) a large and impressive industrial training facility seemed to operate cyclically through peaks and valleys. It was in one of these lean years -- when money was tight --that without warning a new executive responsible for the entire campus was assigned. He announced a few changes would result. That was it -- no other information. Who was this fellow and what was his agenda? Bits and pieces of information -- mainly gossip summed him up as a “hatchet man” hired to turn a profit at any cost.

At first, on a daily basis, the new manager would take a couple of the training professionals out to lunch for informal talks regarding the training business; at least that is how they perceived it. Soon a few serious changes were made that ended some program offerings -- jobs were lost as a result. No rhyme or reason was offered to the staff. Rumors were wild -- fear and anxiety at an all time high. Focuses on what the customers of the training function wanted and needed were soon forgotten.

The management staff quickly lost respect for this new executive. They pondered why he had not shared his vision. The teams begin complaining and showing signs of frustration. Even though the new manager was the leader few honored, respected or revered his authority. Subtle resistances to his changes advanced to open rebellion. This internal conflict soon consumed the entire organization.

More jobs were lost over the next few months. The continued resistance became so severe that the campus would eventually close forever. All of organizations serviced by the training organization had to find another way to address their training needs. Many responded by adding a training responsibilities to existing supervisors who had no expertise in the area or created a new job for training. Only the most essential and required training continued. The cycle continued and eventually the loss of capability became apparent and outside vendors were contracted to provide the training. Customers of the Training Function were the big loser in this mismanaged fiasco.

Most of the initial changes were for the overall good and survival of the training business. Some were even direct response to customer input and desires. What then had gone so seriously wrong with this plan that resulted in failure?

Over the years the training function had made many large impact changes to the business. Why then was managing change not down to a science? Why was there so much resistance from stakeholders at a time when large impact changes were necessary for survival of the business?



Considerations for Managing Change.

Stakeholders had a history of unpleasant experiences to draw from regarding how the organization had managed changes in the past -- and they did not trust the leadership or authority. As is often the case this resulting attitude becomes, “I am not going to submit to this authority or change unless I first totally agree with every small detail.” A sobering observation here was that this “rebellion” was not blatant but subtle, at least in the beginning. Open rebellion towards the manager resulted in him being transferred. The situation had reached the point where the entire organization was abolished and capability that had been a benchmark for the industry was lost.

Hopefully we all learn from our mistakes and successes. Smart people learn from the mistake and success of others. In our example it is worth considering what went wrong with the process of managing change.

Change is necessary and inevitable for the needs of the business. This example suggests that we as people crave a sense of order. It is the human behavior that defines the organizational culture. Culture reflects the need for order in how we share meaning, develop and use a common language and develop views which seems to make our business world less unpredictable

Culture can obstruct the change process and contribute to resistance. The resistance in this case was due in part to:
• Self interests
• Process ownership
• Fear of the unknown
• Differing perceptions and visions
• Lack of respect for the leadership and position of authority (the office)
• Lack of a purpose driven focus
• Suspicion based on past negative experiences (personal or shared)
• Conservatism
• Customer needs were not the focus of anyone’s efforts once the rebellion was in full force.

It seems that in today’s work world if we do not agree with authority or change, we can challenge it through complaint or protest. Most can agree that in leadership there is a provision of protection in exchange for submission to authority. There is freedom in submission to the authority and bondage in our rebellion to it. The rebellion in our example led to the extinction of the entire training business. Careers were derailed or lost -- trust for all leaders diminished at the worker level.

It seems there are many reasons for rebellion to authority and change. In our example there was more than one vision, a lack of purpose driven focus, a demand for compliance rather than commitment and little willingness to explain the “what is in it for me” to stakeholders regarding where we were going and why. Customers -- if considered -- were never mentioned.

It seems that managing change causes many of us to become “NUMB” – that is not using my brain. Unfortunately this can be true for all involved – the managers as well as the workers. It is up to the leadership to do things differently.

Breaking a wild horse is a tough process. If done properly the horse is not weakened or devalued as a result. The horse is more useful and effective as a result and generally respects authority if the spirit is not broken in the process. With a heavy hand and lack of understanding the spirit of the animal can be broken. What you then have is a broken down compliant animal not very useful for anything.

The process of change is generally more than simply designing a process. It is more than drafting procedures, policies or practices. It is more than training stakeholders. It certainly should be a purpose driven focus with the customer considered first and one that involves the well being of our people.

Managing the change process requires what we call a Stakeholder Analysis. This early step in managing changes requires that we examine past history of implementing change with a particular stakeholder group. It requires that we provide champions or sponsors that “walk the talk”.

We must also examine stress levels of the targeted group. How does the proposed change fit the cultural? Surely we should communicate the WIIFM “what is in it for me”. How about developing the skill sets of the change agents? Would it not also be a wise move to communicate the timing of changes, the consequences of failure and the rewards for success?

Managing the challenges of change requires that motivational reasons are provided to those expected to give up the status quo. Successful change requires a clear vision of the desire future state.

In developing a powerful vision of change we should explain how things would improve for the organization as a result. The stakeholders need a process to achieve the desired future state. An understanding of economic reality and the demands of the customer must be communicated. They need to understand how the change fits into the organizations strategic plans and for that matter were they fit as well.

Change is a journey. For success in managing change we assist our stakeholders with a road map for making this journey. The road map at a minimum will include:
• Description of the change
• Explanation of why the change is needed
• How this change will positively impact customers
• The organizations strategic plans
• People objectives
• Key roles and responsibilities
• Vision and purpose to obtain excellence
• Details of the change process
• Timing and resources available
• Measurements
• Etc.

The road map to assist us in managing the challenge of change process is comprehensive and engaging. Training for the organization Change agents includes building committed management unification that respects and is compassionate to the fears and anxiety of those being asked to make the changes and include:
• Establishing a clear vision for change
• Communications requirements with the affected stakeholders
• Maintains a customer focus
• Monitoring of progress
• Elimination of obstacles
• Performing stakeholder analysis to gain understanding of peoples levels of influence and commitment to the change
• Rewarding wins

People do not generally resist their own ideas. Getting stakeholders involved early in the planning will lead to personal commitment regarding the desired change. We should validate the feelings of people. When our feelings are hurt we have a tendency to exhibit “fight” or “flight” behaviors. Either way the battle is up hill.

Resistance can be due to a lack of knowledge, or a lack of information. Behavioral resistance on the other hand is often due to reactions of others, personal perceptions and assumptions generally driven by emotions. In acknowledging the pains of others we must deal with the realities and perceptions caused by the change.

1. It is often very painful and uncomfortable to let go of the FAMILIAR.
2. Sometimes we have increased emotions regarding UNCERTAIN FUTURES.
3. Sometimes individual stakeholders must deal with the LOSS OF FACE. Case in point -- a manager is removed from the position of authority and made a member of the team they once managed.
4. Most often we need a PURPOSE DRIVEN FOCUS towards the new realities.

In our example, facilitating a meeting with the entire professional training organization could have exposed the real issues and avoided the misery and pain that resulted from the ill-managed change process. This open forum could have allowed people to vent and constructively express frustrations, which likely would have reduced passive aggressive behavior and sabotage of the intended changes.

The take home nugget here is to examine how we manage the challenge of change brought about by DMAIC steps of Six Sigma Plus projects. The Measure and Analyze Steps in DMAIC include measuring and analyzing the readiness for change by the various stakeholders involved. Part of any Implementation and Control Plan must address these issues. If not -- at best -- your project will have short-term incremental success. You cannot expect to claim success for your breakthrough improvements -- or sustain your gains -- without the assistance of your people. One of the greatest challenges to managing change is to actively respect the needs of your people as you would those of your customer.