Want Leaders to Care About Organizational Change Management? Appeal to What Matters to Them Most: Executing Business Goals

In a recent forum, someone posted: 

 “𝘊𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥. 𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦, 𝘪𝘵'𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦‐𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭-𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨‐𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦.” 

This is an excellent (and timely) question and there were 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗲𝘀, such as: 

"𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴...𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 1-5 𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘦 ...𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴..."

"𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘧𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵-𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘳-𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭."

"𝘖𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 '𝘉𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦, 𝘋𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘈𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦' 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘨𝘦, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘺."

"𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴." 

𝗠𝘆 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲: 

The importance of sponsorship from the top cannot be overstated. According to Prosci, "𝘈𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴." You may be thinking, "well, duh, we know this." 

The reason I'm teasing out this fundamental fact is because I remain surprised (𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱) by the number of times I encounter top leaders who simply don't "get it" when it comes to Organizational Change Management (OCM). And, it has been my experience that 𝗯𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗹𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗶𝗲𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. 

So, before getting to the heart of the question, I want to first state that any desire one has to "𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘴" begins at the top, and that often starts with adjusting the language we use to convey the critical importance of implementing CM in the first place, and making it part of an organization's culture. 

𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗸.

The reason change management is very project-focused to begin with is because 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘁. Therefore, that's where the focus naturally tends to go. So, with that understanding, the reality is that it's necessary to get buy-in and budget for anyone to care about change management in the first place. This means thinking in terms of what usually tends to matter most—at least initially. So, let's get right to the point of framing the conversation around 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧'𝗦 𝗔𝗧 𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗞 𝗜𝗙 𝗘𝗫𝗘𝗖𝗨𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗙𝗔𝗜𝗟𝗦.

𝗥𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮 𝗵𝘂𝗴𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸. 

Change Practitioners already know there's a huge risk of when people don't fully adopt change, and this equates to low-to-no-value of realized project success. 

However, in terms of what financial stewards need to understand, failed adoption means it will take significantly longer to realize project success, and that translates into being 𝗘𝗫𝗧𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗟𝗬 𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗦𝗜𝗩𝗘. 

And that very likely will result in business goals not being achieved in a timely manner (and productivity being adversely impacted). This means 𝗙𝗔𝗜𝗟𝗨𝗥𝗘 at a certain level. 

Think about something that's really important to your company's current initiatives—something really important that's got the CEO's full attention. We're talking about high impact projects with high visibility. Now, remember the pain and consequences from failed projects of the past. Think about the outcomes if the high impact initiatives currently in play fail. 

Notice that I haven't mentioned anything about a change strategy yet. Hopefully, I'm appealing to executive decision-makers in a way that invites you to think differently about what's at risk and the business case for OCM. I understand that you may be used to Change Practitioners talking about OCM, referencing third-party data about why it’s important, and why that often doesn't land. 

There are many tools, resources, approaches, models, and standards. But in order to promote a definition of change management that makes sense, we need to translate traditional CM calculations and terms like “resistance, saturation, attrition, and retention” into hard data, like what these things mean in relation to real financial and opportunity costs and loss of market share and competitiveness. 

𝗪𝗲 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀—𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀. 

Drilling further into the original question, "𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦‐𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘴?" here are my thoughts:

𝗤: 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘀 𝘄𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗽𝗶𝗹𝗼𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘂𝗽𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀?

A: Incorporate team coaching and fold it into everything, stating a shared purpose and objective for each team and taking a systemic approach to identifying and leveraging strengths across team members in order to increase interdependency, improve communication and collaboration, and achieve co-created goals to get desired outcomes. 

𝗤: 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗖𝗠-𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀?

A: This starts with inspired leadership and a strong corporate culture that first creates the trust needed to empower managers to confidently step into this role as champions of change. Training may also be needed depending on existing knowledge and prerequisite skills related to OCM.

𝗤: 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗯𝘂𝘆‐𝗶𝗻? 

A: Ongoing support, coaching, mentoring, and general engagement and involvement in the process, thereby fostering a higher sense of ownership and agency with regard to implementing OCM across teams.