Change management is one of those core competencies that seems to mean different things to different people. Whatever the methods used, however, the process of achieving change is fraught with problems: resistance; failure of user or leadership buy-in; time delays.

Currently many projects are defined, level-set and lead by ‘leaders’ who don’t touch the problem daily, can’t know the full set of problem specifics, and whose jobs will be least disturbed by the new solution. Unless

• the risk of the proposed change is understood and agreed to;
• the lion’s share of the data gathering and goal setting includes the full system that created and maintains the problem, and
• those who execute the new have a real voice in helping set the goal and create the change,

challenges will arise. After all, problems arise – and must be resolved – within a system. When the full set of systems issues aren’t represented, goals can’t be established with accuracy, risk can’t be managed early, and disruption eventually shows up as resistance, time delays, and lack of buy-in.

Too often, a change in behaviors is a goal. But since behaviors are merely the outputs of a system – manifestations of the system in action – trying to change a behavior by merely trying to change a behavior leads to a disruption and Systems Incongruence.

THE CAUSE OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS

Change must emerge from the systems that generated the problem being resolved:

• data collection must come from a wide swath of job descriptions;
• any potential risk of change must be understood and plans to manage it must be considered;
• the unconscious, personal, and values-based issues and risks people must resolve internally must be known and included.

Unfortunately, risks aren’t often taken into account during change management projects. And when only parts of a system (i.e. behaviors) are included in a change initiative, the system thinks it’s at risk and resists. Resistance is merely a signal, a system’s response being pushed, causing these challenges:

1. Problem definition: Too often only chosen ‘leaders’ define the problem and set the goals without gathering the full problem description from those who work with it daily. That means the solution will be skewered by the assumptions of those without first-hand involvement and the proposed solution may not address the full problem set. It goes without saying that if problems arise, those on the front line won’t ‘own’ it when it goes wrong.

I had a persistent cable issue. To fix it, Xfinity sent out 8 techs over the course of 5 months. Each stayed exactly 20 minutes. The problem never got resolved until the last tech, Tom stayed as long it took to fix it. But he admitted he feared losing his job as corporate regs allowed only 20 minutes per house. Tom said he and several other field techs had tried to explain the field issues to leadership but they wouldn’t take feedback from the service techs.

Net-net, Tom resolved the problem permanently in 40 minutes. Let’s do the math: 8 people at 20 minutes each = 160 minutes, instead of 40 minutes for one person. Xfinity spent an additional hour, squandering the time of 7 extra people, including their travel time, salaries and expenses. And I’m one customer. Multiply this waste by millions. How much money, time, resource, and reputation are they wasting by putting time (such as it was) before people?
2. Front-line users overlooked at project start: Without immediately involving the people with the most knowledge (details and nuances) and who would be most impacted by the new solution, it’s impossible to

• • • set a goal,
    • gather the full set of facts to define the problem,
    • understand the possible risks to the project or long-term operations,
    • generate efficient buy-in or willingness to take responsibility to own a problem as underlying values might be compromised,
    • avoid resistance and time delays,
    • develop a full range of ideas and choices for resolution.

In other words, when the full stakeholder group isn’t involved before goals or strategy is set they resist.

I recently got a call from one of the leaders of the Business Process Management field. He wanted to learn my 13 Steps of Change model as an antidote to the resistance, time delays, and lack of buy-in that has plagued the field for decades. When he showed me their working model I noticed that front-line workers weren’t brought into a process until Step 6! Why so late? “Leaders know enough about the issues to set the goals and expectations. We give these folks a say when we tell them what we expect.” But by then the overall solution had been established and the resistance and time delays were already rearing their heads! “It would take too much time to gather information and get buy-in from everyone! Far more efficient for the leaders to do it themselves. They know the problems well-enough.”
3. Risks unknown: Until the risks of change (ego issues, job skills, time to learn, habit changes etc.) are understood and accepted by those who face altered jobs, the people needed to perform the new solution will resist. Until the ‘cost’ of the risk of change is agreed with, the risk of disruption is too high. The risk of change must be less than the risk of staying the same or the status quo will prevail.

4. Assumptions: Because leaders assume that followers will adopt new behaviors that have a ‘rational’ explanation; because Listeners can only fully understand 35% of what’s been said; everyone assumes followers will automatically buy-in to change. This leads to misunderstanding and guesswork, not to mention time delays and lack of buy-in.

It’s possible to avoid these issues with a different approach and mindset.

Sample

CHANGE FACILITATION

In 1983 I started up a tech company in London, long before technology was ubiquitous, long before any of us knew the optimal environment for tech startups. Coming from a sales background I had no knowledge of running a company, merely a belief that if I served both employees and customers with integrity in an environment of trust, kindness, collaboration, and creativity, we’d be successful. But I had no idea how to achieve it.

I did understand, however, that any changes we were to make had to represent the values of the company and arise from everyone who touched the problem and solution. I did a lot of trial and error – lots of error! – and eventually developed a 13 Step Change Facilitation model that assured full team collaboration and avoided resistance in order to:

• understand the as much of the risk of change as possible;
• gather most of the complete data set the start to set a goal that fully matched the problem set;;
• include everyone’s feedback, ideas, and needs in the goal;
• work as a collaborative unit throughout the length of the initiative as we trialed and re-trialed possibilities;
• avoid time delays and resistance, and minimizes risk;
• inspire ownership so we all took responsibility when a problem showed up;
• make changes easily with everyone’s buy-in so the end product was creative, useful, and easy to modify when necessary.

Our change initiatives and problem solving made us stronger as a team. Together we became a $5,000,000 company in just under 4 years – with no computers, no email, no internet, no websites, no LinkedIn, no brand reputation, and no social media.

13 STEPS OF CHANGE

Here’s a list of the 13 Steps of Change that unpack the route to behavior change in a way that ensures the full system is included in planning for change:

1. Idea stage. Someone has an idea that something needs to change and begins discussing the idea with colleagues.

2. Assembly stage. To understand the full fact pattern involved, the originator assembles a meeting of those who have hands on the problem, as well as other leaders, colleagues and those who will touch the final solution so they’ll buy in and take ownership of the eventual change design. All discuss their knowledge of the issues and problems, consider who to else to include to understand the full fact pattern, brainstorm ideas for possible fixes and the risks/fallout of each. All discuss the values, beliefs, and criteria that must be addressed for change to be congruent with the identity of the system. Small groups are formed to research ways to fix the problem with known resources.

3. Consideration stage. Full group (or representatives if a large project) meets to discuss research findings. Do any of them match the group criteria? Can the group fix the problem themselves or must an external be brought in? Discuss the type of fallout/risks from each.

4. Organization stage. A goal is tentatively trialed, with the understanding that unknown issues might crop up and need to be included. All must agree on the initial path and the criteria for change or offer alternate suggestions before going forward.

5. Change Management Risk stage. Using the research there’s a meeting to determine