Would You Rather be Change Managed or Change Engaged?

Picture this: Your place of employment has big changes in the works. Some product lines are being retired. New services are going to market to replace them. As a result, there are new reporting structures. There will be different business processes underpinned by innovative technology. Change is everywhere you look. Anxiety is palpable – as well as a sense of excitement at the possibilities.

As an employee would you want to be change managed? Or change engaged?

Make no doubt about it, as change management emerged in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, it was a big step forward. The fact that someone, somewhere in the organization was helping employees through a structured methodology that included awareness, communication, and training began to address the compelling realization that people were most often the “make or break” factor in the success or failure of any change effort.

Yet change management, to me, conveys the ideas of doing something “to” people rather than “with” people. What if the mind-shift changed a bit? From change management to change engagement?

Change engagement would include:

• Involving employees early in the decision process. Perhaps not deciding, but at a minimum communicating the challenge or opportunity being addressed, the options considered and the path chosen to employees before it was a foregone conclusion.
• Getting input on the problem, the solution, the approach, and the implementation plan on a regular basis.
• Communicating with rather than communicating to. Having real conversations, face-to-face, person-to-person, about the changes. Eliminating, as much as possible, email blasts, newsletter articles and other broadcast, one-way communications.
• Using the “experts” only where needed and letting the “locals” learn side-by-side with them.
• Having employees who are ultimately going to do the work also help with the design, build, testing, troubleshooting, training, communication, and support for the new work.
• Giving key stakeholders more decision making power – not just to approve, but also to improve.

Hard work to change engage. Yet it brings a host of benefits:

• Better solutions, as those who know the work best shape it.
• Less resistance, as people don’t resist what they have had a hand in creating.
• Higher productivity throughout the change (as anyone who has experienced the amount of time consumed by speculation, fear and worry when change is afoot and management has gone “dark”).
• Higher levels of buy-in.
• More readiness (in both attitude and skill) for the change, as there has been relevant engagement early on.
• Shortened time from implementation to proficiency, as employees have been involved early on.

And of course, nothing comes without a price. Change engagement means:

• There is more time spent on the front end of the project as stakeholders take a more active role.
• It may be messier. It is far easier (in the short term) to make a unilateral decision a few rather than to invite input from the many.
• Dealing with the discomfort of giving up some decision making power.
• Being willing to have “real” conversations about the change, which may not always be easy and likely involve a degree of vulnerability for the leader.
• Paying the price of pulling folks from their day job (although know that many change engagement strategies only require a small amount of focused effort over the life of the project).

Ultimately, the decision to change engage can be a “make or break” decision. I think back to a past healthcare client implementing an electronic medical records (EMR) solution. The first pass was done by the “experts” in a cloistered work space (as to not interfere with the productivity of the clinical staff). At implementation, training was done. Computer work stations appeared. Clinical staff were told to begin using the system. Within two weeks the multi-year, multi-million dollar project was dead on arrival.

Fast forward two years later when the project was revived. The new effort involved clinical staff right from the start in selecting the EMR solution provider. A few clinical staff worked side by side every step of the way – and were charged to keep their colleagues informed. Small steps were tested, not in the project war room, but on the floor. Input was given; adjustments were made. Leaders were trained and then charged to have dialogue sessions with staff about the upcoming implementation. Trainers were fellow staffers. Staff had time to practice using the EMR in a “lab” before they were asked to use it with patients.

Not easy by any means. But a success. This time the solution stuck. And spread to other parts of the organization. Were there problems? Of course. But this time, the clinical staff spent their energy resolving the problems and removing roadblocks to implementing the EMR. During the first attempt (that failed), all the clinical energy was spent on defeating the new system.

The difference between success and failure was not the quality of the software. It was moving from a staff that was “change managed” to one that was “change engaged”.

What steps might you take to build change engagement into your organization? If you want some ideas, reach out to me!