There are plenty of theories on change management, and this isn’t one of them. This is a simple checklist for anyone driving big, complex organizational change.

But first, you have to recognize when you are facing what we’ll call “Big Change.” Some examples: You are changing leaders, and the new person is bringing new “direction.” Or, you are downsizing or consolidating. Or, you are fixing an organization-wide problem with maintenance, safety, or something. Or, you are moving the location of a factory. The list is endless, but you get the picture.

It’s the “Soft Side” That Makes Change Hard

There are two sides to the Big Change coin (pun intended). First, there is the “hard side,” the physical details that will – or had better – end up in a project plan, complete with pretty Gantt charts. The other side of the coin is the “soft side,” the people stuff. Of course, it’s the soft side of change management that makes Big Change hard. And if you think that the soft side is too squishy to be managed in any hard-headed way, you might be surprised. (And for Pete’s sake, don’t try to get off the hook by appointing a “change manager.” If you’re leading the change, you are the change manager!)

8 Transformational Levers: MICE ROAR

There is a handful of “people systems” that can be your transformational levers on the soft side of Big Change. If these people systems are aimed in the same direction as your change, you’ll probably succeed. But if they are pointed in a different direction, then it’s like driving a car with its wheels out of alignment: while you’re steering in one direction, invisible forces will pull you in a different direction.

This checklist calls out those invisible forces and makes them available as transformational levers. The point is to put transformational levers IN YOUR PLAN, right alongside “select moving company.” You want to get all the arrows to point in the same direction at the right time.

Most of these transformational levers can be used to get you through the change, and they can also be used on the other side of the change to sustain it. Here, we’re just talking about using them to get you through the change. For example, the first lever, Measurement, could remind you to measure how many people are, say, trained in a new process, how many have adopted the new process, how much re-work is required as they get used to the new process, and so on. On the other side of change, you will want to measure outcomes, such as the degree to which you are getting the benefits of the new process (reduced costs, cycle time, up time, whatever). But that’s another story and not the point we’re trying to make here.

So, as you read the list, think about how you might use it to get through the change; if you think about it for other purposes, that’s a bonus.

We call this our MICE ROAR checklist (thanks to Jeff Kenyon, software guru and graduate of our Implementing Strategic Change course, for sorting our list into a clever acronym). If you have thoughtfully addressed these levers in your planned change, you should do pretty well. They are:

• Measurement
• Involvement
• Communication
• Education & Training
• Reinforcement
• Organizational Structure
• Accountability Processes
• Resourcing

Here’s a little more detail on each one:

1)   “What gets measured gets done” isn’t exactly true; you must attach consequences to your outcomes. However, there is no better spotlight, nor better foundation for consequences, than measurement. You can measure processes: how well you are doing what you say you’re doing. Or, you can measure outcomes: the results of your processes.

2)   Everyone writing about change agrees that involvement of people affected by the change is important. The underlying reason is that people hate feeling out of control of important parts of their lives. In a change project this lack of comfort quickly leads to massive resistance. To avoid this you must give the people affected by the change a serious opportunity to influence the nature of the change and how it is implemented, and you must take their ideas seriously. (Some helpful clarifications on this paragraph: “opportunity” does not mean that all must give their opinions; “influence” does not mean control; “ideas taken seriously” does not equate with getting one’s way.)

3)   Along with the generalized resistance to change that occurs when people feel out of control, is the anxiety that comes from not knowing what’s going on. The problem is that people don’t hear well when they’re resisting, so their uncertainty doesn’t go away when rational explanations are offered. If anything, resistance increases, causing another escalation of anxiety and resistance. The only way to break this vicious circle is communication, and lots of it! (As a good starting point, consider William Bridges’ 7X7 principle: Communicate it seven times, seven different ways. His wise book, Managing Transitions, is highly recommended.)

4)   Education (and training) is straightforward. It simply means that people must be knowledgeable of the vision, values, goals and objectives of the organization, and must be equipped with the skills necessary for their new jobs. People must also be educated about the transformational change and trained on the skills necessary to execute the transformational change. Keep in mind the principle of just-in-time training, which means DON’T teach somebody how to do something wayyyy before they’ll be able to use it; they just forget.

5)   We all know that people generally do whatever gets them rewarded. It’s pretty obvious that the reinforcement system needs to be changed whenever there’s a strategic change to the work that people do. We take a broad view of the reinforcement system, and include in it the way people get paid (and what they get paid for), their benefits, other financial rewards, and non-financial forms of reward and recognition.

6)   The term Organizational Structure refers to three things: (1) Accountability Hierarchy, the lines and boxes on an organizational chart (who’s accountable to whom for what), (2) process design (the lines and boxes on a process flow chart), and (3) position descriptions. If you have names that you plan to match with positions, that is good to include also. As with all transformational tools, you will have some elements that you install only during the transformational change, and some that will endure after the transformational change. Therefore you will have some Organizational Structure considerations that are temporary – say, the design of the project team. And you will have some design considerations that are permanent, such as the design of the organization being changed.

7)   Accountability Processes – sometimes called performance management – are the processes by which you hold people accountable. Implementation of strategic change, by definition, affects the work for which people are held accountable. So at this time it is especially crucial to have processes through which to ensure the three elements of accountability (clarity of request, buy-in, and performance consequences). During the change you will need more frequent review goal setting/review intervals. For example, during a big change with the entrenched staff of a not-for-profit organization, we found weekly review intervals to be especially helpful in turning things around. As the change took root, then monthly intervals sufficed.

8)   Resourcing is about getting the right people into the right jobs, either by external recruitment or through internal postings. It also includes succession planning. Big change often shifts the requirements of key positions, calling for different personal attributes and skills by the people in those positions; when it does, resourcing efforts need to have been thought out in advance and kicked into gear.

We are big believers in checklists (for inspiration on that point, see Atul Gawande’s The Checklist Manifesto) and we hope you find this one useful.

Are there other “people systems” you would add to this list?

Wendi: I’m writing this from a little restaurant at the San Francisco airport.  I’ve had a longer than usual travel day – more time than usual to observe and appreciate the people working on behalf of my travel experience. As I looked closely today, I realized that almost all of them – the janitor in the restroom, the flight attendants, the gate agent, and now the server at this restaurant – have delivered exceptional performance. Each of them has had a sincere smile. Each one has been proactive, understanding and then taking care of my needs. It almost feels odd. Did someone toss magic fairy dust into the air today? I must investigate.

So I just spoke with Lori, my server at the restaurant. I asked her what caused her to be so good – to keep such a positive, proactive attitude.  Here’s what she said: “Consider that YOU play a role in this. When you bring positive expectations and notice what I’m doing well, it makes it easier for me to be good.”

Wow! Not only is she articulate, she’s right. There is something powerful – sometimes even magical – about noticing and explicitly reinforcing good performance. By the way, I think I just got reinforced for good performance!

Bill Casey & Wendi Peck

Both hands flat on her desk, fingers splayed, Suzi looked up and glared before smiling weakly, in recognition. The last time we had seen her, two years previously, she looked ten years younger. Now, these thin lips and narrowed eyes belonged to a different person. She had lost her laugh . . . and much more. Suzi, and others we have seen before and since, had been dragged through the No Authority Gauntlet – what we call the “NAG syndrome.”

Here’s how it’s done: You hand someone a management job, but one without commensurate management authorities. In other words, make this person accountable for the work of others, but with no accompanying clout; make sure that this pseudo-manager’s accountability goes on for months or even years. The people “reporting” to the pseudo-manager must also have other managers with other demands, but those other managers must have actual, ordinary managerial authorities (selection, de-selection, performance appraisal, you know; we’ve spelled them out in this quick, free book chapter published by Stanford Press).

These employees may sincerely make commitments to this pseudo-manager, and they may intend to keep those commitments. After all, it will be for a good cause – “quality,” “customer service,” “process improvement,” “safety,” or some such. So, the lip service will come easily and enthusiastically. However, when it’s time to prioritize work, these employees will naturally prioritize the demands of their real managers ahead of those of the pseudo-manager. Thus begins the NAG syndrome.

The Three Stages of the NAG Syndrome

The pseudo-manager will experience the NAG syndrome in three stages:

1. Jubilance. In this initial state, the pseudo-manager is proud to be tackling a task that darn near everyone agrees is terribly important. She is confident that any organizational challenge can be met. Huzzah!

2. Doubt. Lip service and elbow grease seem to be going in different directions. People keep endorsing the pseudo-manager’s task, but follow-through is sporadic. The pseudo-manager can’t understand what’s going on, and neither can anyone else. Not enough leadership? Not enough communication?

3. Bitterness. This is the final, crazy, phase. In the face of flaccid cooperation, or even rebellion, the pseudo-manager becomes indignant. Don’t these people understand how important this is? Don’t they care about the organization? Weren’t there promises made?

Cleaving to the importance of her task, like a believer in a land of apostates, the pseudo-manager uses the only authority she has: nag authority. She becomes a total pain in the rear – if she continues to take her mission seriously. That’s the unfairness of it: only pseudo-managers who take their tasks seriously are most affected by the NAG syndrome. Others find a way to bail out.

Slower, Riskier, Costlier

In some organizations, NAG is practically synonymous with project management. A few years ago we conducted research on over 500 project managers and found that a huge contributor to project failure was the NAG syndrome (second only to unclear project goals). The problem is so endemic, that courses are offered to project managers in how to manage without authority. That strikes us as similar to teaching people how to live with malaria, instead of giving them mosquito nets.

“Process management,” likewise, has its share of failures because the “process owner” had no authority. Once the frothy-mouthed corporate enthusiasm dies down and the suit-clad consultants go away, nagging process owners find they cannot enforce the new ERP (or whatever) that cuts across the organization.

Organizations waste millions of dollars this way. Our research has shown that – best case – initiatives undertaken by nagging, pseudo-managers takes waaaaaaay longer than initiatives undertaken by managers who have ordinary managerial authority.

Consider: We’re talking about one of the REALLY BIG risks to success, and yet it costs absolutely nothing to mitigate.

How It All Starts

It isn’t a bad guy that usually launches a NAG scenario. Normally, these messes seem logical at the time. For example, you put one bright, articulate person in charge of monitoring some particular process: say, power consumption at various military installations. After awhile, she becomes the expert on power consumption at these facilities. At that point, then you say, “Hey, you’re the expert on this, how about if you take the lead on decreasing power across all these facilities?” Now, she’s not in command of any of these installations. She has no authority over anyone in any of these places, but “Sure,” she says. “I’ll be happy to take the lead.” And so she begins her march down the nagging path to nuttiness.

Too often we put faith in the cure called “communication,” or the cure called “leadership.” Because we know that these qualities are necessary, we believe them to be sufficient. They are sufficient only some of the time. The problem is the failure to distinguish what it takes to obtain occasional cooperation from others within the organization, and the conditions needed to do it all the time. This is the difference between borrowing a cup of sugar from a neighbor and shopping in his pantry. It’s the difference between using your relationships and using them up.

And, finally, we see NAG setups occurring when “everybody agrees” that we “gotta do something” about X. For example, at one telecommunication company where we had worked, we happened to be talking with the “VP of Quality” – as he was packing boxes in his office, preparing to move out. The company and all of its leadership had recognized the need to quickly and dramatically improve quality on a number of fronts. So they had hired a famous quality guru. They had given him leeway to hire a handful of bright young internal consultants, which he had. They had given him an office next to the CEO. And, they had given him a substantial training budget to help get everyone trained on “quality.” But after everyone had been trained, and after all the confetti and hoopla had settled down, quality essentially had gone nowhere.

Standing there in his office, we asked him: “Did you ever have the authorities you needed to do what you came to do – to actually get your peers to change how they operate?”

This bright and charismatic leader glowered a bit at the temerity of the question. Then, taking a deep breath, he said, “No,” and closed his eyes briefly.

The whole company had been in a frenzy over quality. Who would think the VP of Quality would need any clout? Why bother giving him the same sort of authorities that you would give the head of production, sales, shipping, or anything else? Heck, everyone’s so enthusiastic about the cause, why bother with such nits at all?

Because they’re required, that’s all. (Or “requisite,” as management guru Elliott Jaques would have said. Here is a nice summary.)

All these goof-ups occur because they sometimes work. Like a failed gambling strategy, success comes now and then, despite lousy reasoning. That occasional success is just enough encouragement for executives to scrutinize a NAG-stricken pseudo-manager and conclude, “We gotta get someone in here who can lead!” Or, “We all just need to communicate better!”

Curing the NAG

The solution to the problem of unempowered managers is really quite simple: downsize their accountability to match their miniscule authority, or upsize their authorities – publicly anointing them (people cannot self-anoint) – to match their accountability. Anything else should leave nagging doubts.

Wendi Peck and Bill Casey

Layoffs, staff cuts, downsizing – whatever you call them – are hard on everyone.

The people being laid off, the departees, are absorbing a loss of livelihood and blow to the ego that carries them through all the classic phases of grief [explained in this quick video from clever Canadian change guru, Bob McCulloch], each in their own way. There’s a huge temptation to apply salves such as sympathy-seeking or hostility to carry them through.

The boss overseeing the layoffs must make sure the organization isn’t left in worse shape because of her decisions. Despite the stress, guilt, and awkwardness that most people experience when laying off subordinates, the boss has to clearheadedly consider long-term, unwanted side effects of her decisions today – including impact to morale and disruption to the organization.

The survivors have to make the organization keep working, or work better, despite feelings of guilt, fewer resources and significant organizational uncertainty. The temptation is to over-work or to disengage. Neither is the right path.

We’ve worked on and around layoff situations in all types of organizations. While there’s plenty to say on this topic, we’ve found these tips to be useful:

For the departees: be classy. Be the kind of person you’ll be proud of a year from now – and the kind of person others will be proud to know – and hire. Set a supportive, positive tone. Show your interest in the success of the organization. Proactively help transfer your critical job knowledge and working relationships to those who will have to pick up the slack when you leave.

For the boss: think long term. The crummy things leaders do to avoid short-term pain – such as making impulsive decisions, using email when communicating emotional messages, appearing impassive, and so forth – will cost you big in the long run. Move swiftly but deliberately. And your first step should be to develop the criteria for what positions should be cut. Surprisingly, you will get better decisions and less resistance if you involve employees in developing the criteria – yes, even those who may be laid off. . . Honest. We’ve tried it and it works.

For the survivors: get focused. Now is the time – both for your sake and the organization’s – for you to focus on exactly the right things:

Unless you were really slacking, your best path now isn’t to work harder on just anything and isn’t to disengage. Make yourself valuable . . . and help ensure the success of the organization. As we commented in an earlier post, sometimes, tough, new constraints can actually open opportunities and drive exciting innovation.