(No) time for change
Why managers under pressure don’t have a motivation problem – but a design problem.
On the undconsorten change approach
There are dysfunctional dynamics in organisations that are repeatedly encountered in change processes. At best, they cause everyone involved to shrug their shoulders – at worst, they cause entire programmes to fail. A particularly vivid example is the following sentence, which is often heard in such processes in one form or another:
“I’ve got my hands full operationally – I simply don’t have the time for abstract change concepts right now.”
Now the change manager in question may start thinking about how the change story could be told even better, where more multipliers are needed and whether the person quoted is still in the right place in the new organisation.
You can do all of this – and it is definitely effective at one point or another. But it does not solve the basic systemic problem: that change programmes are often perceived as foreign bodies. Initiated with the best of intentions, but devised by others – by management, the strategy department, HR, organisational development or consultants. It is not uncommon for them to come on top of day-to-day business, at least it feels that way.
So are we dealing with organisations full of obstructionists who shy away from change as soon as it comes within reach?
The salutary recipient perspective
It is therefore worth taking the recipient’s perspective and examining what triggers this behaviour.
On the one hand, there are negatively connoted emotions that are often inherent to change: Experiences of the ineffectiveness of past change programmes, fear of loss of status, fear of negative economic consequences. These effects have now been sufficiently discussed and are certainly manageable with an intelligent change toolbox, coupled with rapid impact orientation and transparent communication – which does not mean that their management is trivial.
More interesting are the effects that result from the current situation of the respective manager: a mixture of operational pressure and a perceived irrelevance of the change for their own working reality. How does the change fit into day-to-day business? How does it fit in with other priorities?
Let's assume that a manager always goes to work with the intention of doing a good job. And in this seemingly innocent hypothesis lies the unspoken conflict of many change programmes. Managers are labelled as “obstructionists” – without seriously asking how the change fits into their reality.
After all, if someone is already working at the limit, making every effort to fulfil high expectations, going the extra mile – and then a new topic comes up that has been set by others and is perceived to involve considerable effort with uncertain benefits: Who can blame this manager for not treating change as a top priority?
What is needed in this situation: Interlocking instead of additional effort
What is needed is an intelligent integration of change with day-to-day business – and the creation of ownership during the change programme, not just afterwards. Business relevance leads to changes in behaviour, changes in behaviour lead to positive experiences, positive experiences can influence basic attitudes and thus make change sustainable.
In our experience, such an interlinking must fulfil five success factors:
1. focus on business issues
Instead of thinking in terms of the change narrative, the focus should be on the challenges and the working reality of managers. Change planning should be tested with operational managers as early as possible – even before broad communication and roll-out. This dialogue leads to a stress test for business relevance – and leads to a joint discussion about what is possible and where reprioritisation is needed.
Stress test for business relevance
Five key questions for the early involvement of managers
- What are the current pain points of managers?
- Does the change programme address them adequately – or does it miss the mark?
- What is superfluous, what is missing, what needs to be adapted?
- How can tangible relevance be generated as quickly as possible?
- Where does reprioritisation need to take place – and who needs to make this decision?
2. careful use of time
Formats should be integrated into existing routines or at least built on to them. In this way, there is no immediate feeling that on-top time is necessary.
3. try things out quickly
Plan less, do more. Create an impact as quickly as possible on the specific challenges faced by managers – and thus generate positive, empowering experiences.
4. consistent transfer to the line
Change projects must not stand permanently alongside the organisation. Responsibility for new behaviour must be transferred to the line as quickly as possible - including measurement via KPIs and integration into systems such as target agreements and performance management.
5. closing ranks with the line manager
A manager’s line manager must be aware of the perceived double burden – set an example of new behaviour, help with prioritisation and actively support the embedding of change elements in day-to-day business. Without this support, the hurdle is simply too high for the manager.
And last but not least: an empathetic understanding of the situation of managers – with a partnership-based approach instead of blanket stigmatisation as “change inhibitors” – must be permanently perceptible. From all sides.
If these factors are in place, there is a high probability that change will succeed – and that managers can even enjoy it under pressure.
