In theory, bringing about change in an organisation which needs to adjust to the changes of the market or demands from its counterparts seems like a logical step. In reality, however, changing the structure of an organisation or its strategies is usually a stressful and often painful task.
A multitude of barriers end up frustrating the efforts to bring about shifts, initially designed to change a company or organisation for the better. Figures back up the difficulties in implementing 'change' programmes. According to a survey by International Overseas Consultants, a recruitment organisation, 60 to
70% of corporate change programmes are regarded as having 'failed'.
Meanwhile, the CFO (Chief Financial Officer) Journal points out that only 16% of senior corporate executives were fully satisfied with their re-engineering programmes, in contrast to the 68% who were experiencing problems.
In order to implement successful change programmes, it is crucial to be able to identify potential barriers to restructuring and re-engineering. These hurdles can be created by the people in the organisation, the structure of the organisation, and the various system problems.
The biggest barrier is usually the people in the organisation. Resisting a forced change of the status quo seems to be a normal natural human response.
'People put skids under change,' points out one consultant. The initial response of people in an organisation undergoing change is absolute denial of the issues needing to be addressed.
As changes move on, they enter a period of fear, and start resisting the changes, and try to isolate themselves from the restructuring. As the changes continue resistance grows, and attitudes harden even further.
Such attitudes are brought about by several factors which include inadequate leadership, poor communication, inappropriate structure, and misaligned systems, says Debbie Rynda, a management consultant at PA Consulting Group.
'The trick in managing barriers to change is not just to recognise them, but because we know them, to bring them to the surface early, so that the inevitable resistance to change can be managed and redirected,' says Ms Rynda.
Leadership is crucial to change; without it, it will be hard to implement, or flounder very quickly once put in place. Although leaders do not need to be charismatic, they need to make a persuasive and convincing case for change.
It is important that the programme of change be sponsored by the CEO for it to be credible. Management also needs to be accountable and measured for achieving change.
The leaders of change need to exemplify the new behaviours required as well as ensuring that people do not focus entirely on internal change. If leadership fails, people within the organisation will withdraw their trust and lose commitment, building up further cynicism.
Good communication is vital in the process of change to allay fears and promote the right amount of enthusiasm.
However, it is an area which many organisations manage poorly. 'Failure to manage communication has the strongest correlation to unexpected change programme costs - both direct and indirect,' says Ms Rynda.
Faced with facts and explanations, employees may not always like what they hear or read, but by being better informed, they will be less cynical and more rational about the decisions being made.
A good example of a good communicator, according to PA, was Lloyds Bank, when it decided to merge with TSB Bank. It made a conscious decision to communicate regularly with its employees in order to help them with the transition.
This, points out PA, helped reduce levels of anxiety and prompted employees to take an interest in the transition plans.
When creating a new structure, organisations frequently neglect the fact that restructuring will alter the lives of employees. PA says that there is a need to involve employees in the restructuring and to communicate why these changes are being made, both on a conceptual and practical level.
Employees also need to be involved in the transferring and development of skills.
The overlap between the new organisation and the old systems, which includes remuneration and recognition, could cause confusion and erode morale. 'The systems should reflect the required new behaviours and culture and encourage change, not allow people to fight it and be driven to display old behaviours and performance,' says PA.
Bob Garratt, a consultant and visiting professor at Imperial College, London, points to the importance of identifying the priorities of change, where the energies to deliver these lie, and where blockages to change exist.
After identifying where an organisation's strengths and weaknesses lie, (both through individual and group interviews of both management and employees), consultants work with management to introduce systems, training and development courses, to bring about change. This also requires individual directors and managers to take responsibility for ensuring that each of the organisational issues is fully addressed and implemented in a given time span.
