Issue link: https://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/73199
HRO Today Forum APAC Making Change Happen Leaders in transformation on when it's real—and when it's not. By the Editors Amongst the more intriguing presentations in Singapore was a discussion of "change, " led by Ray Bigger, managing director Think8. Joining Bigger were four HR thought leaders: Sue Campbell, managing director of service delivery and operations for FutureStep Asia Pacific; Astik Ranade, Asia Pacific leader of human capital operations and technology solutions for Mercer; Mike Schnoll, senior director of the BPO program at Oracle; and Sylvia Vorhauser-Smith, an expert in neuroscience who is senior vice president for research People Up People. RB: Are we talking about change or transformation? MS: Almost always change. Transformation is just very, very difficult. Incremental, process-based change we see all the time. It's risky to say you're going to revolutionise the organisation. SVS: Talking about transformation has a tendency to freak out the mindset. So I agree. Incremental change is more achievable precisely because it follows the existing pathways of the brain, rather than trying to turn the whole thing at once. RB: And yet, even when we're "just" talking about change, two- thirds of change projects fail. What's the main reason? SC: Lack of stakeholder engagement—at the right level, and at the right time. SVP: I think it's fear. When we're changing the status quo that we've invested our careers in, we're actually asking people to reorganise their brains structurally. But we are genetically programmed to fear that. MS: Well, of course, success criteria can be different. On the IT side of the house, the percentage of projects that meet the original functional spec, the original timeline, and the original budget is 16 per cent. So our fail rate is higher. Every project manager I talk to says that success starts with training and user engagement. It's about a people process. RB: Let's take a hypothetical change project. Mike, let's say it's yours. What's the first thing you put at the top of that sheet? MS: It's got to be the stakeholders. Because it's not about me. Who do we need to satisfy? And how are we going to build the feedback mechanism so that we can insure that we're going to deliver the change that they want, that really meets their needs. SC: And stakeholder engagement is very complex. Involving the wrong stakeholders can set you off on the wrong foot from day one. That's especially true across borders where having the wrong stakeholders can completely cost you credibility. AR: And, again, knowing what you're trying to change and how you describe it is critical too. Because otherwise, you can face a response like "We've already done this 19 or 20 times. What are you telling us that's new?" You must define your objectives and get buy-in to that. SVS: The funny thing about change is that no architect of the change was ever fearful of it. The initiator is totally comfortable. When it's imposed upon you, and you're not in control of it, that's when the fear of the unknown comes in, the alarms go off, and the stress mechanisms are set off. But when each of the stakeholders can feel that they're part of the architecture of the change, that is when the fear is largely diminished. SPRING 2012 | www.hroglobal.com [13] AR: Also, when you say 65 or 70 per cent of projects "fail," I think they might not achieve the end-outcome they sought, but might still make changes. If you look at a company that's doing a lot more with a lot less, they might not say they're where they want to be yet. But they've partially met expectations. That's not necessarily "failure." Second, where organisations tend to fall is when they don't look at their whole situation cohesively—a stronger internal stakeholder might push technology or a communications element, and that pushes things out of balance.