Transformational change, that is, change that is of such proportions and scope that, in effect, the organization’s mission and operating model are required to undergo massive alterations is a daunting task for most companies. Yet, transformational change may, in many cases, be the only path to reaching the level of performance that is required to be successful.

There are many techniques for managing transformational change. They all, however, share a similar set of fairly basic steps: Mobilize commitment to change through joint diagnosis of business problems. Change is about people. A key idea that pervades all change approaches is to ensure that the process is inclusive. This starts with the initial analysis and understanding of the nature of the problems being addressed by the proposed change initiative. These efforts should be carried out with as many stakeholders as possible, at different ranks, and from a cross-section of disciplines. Develop a shared sense of significance on the need for transformational change to properly address the business problems that have been identified. This is sometimes referred to as the case for change. Francisco Varela, a biologist, has said: “It is not the ability to solve problems that makes an organization smart. It is the ability of its members to enter into a world whose significance is shared.” This statement emphasizes the important distinction between consensus and alignment. It is not sufficient for people to merely understand that change is necessary, or for there to be a consensus on how to proceed. Successful transformational change requires that the key players have the same sense of urgency and importance regarding the change being contemplated. Without this shared sense of significance, the change effort lacks the robust determination that it will need to weather the many storms (both real and imagined) that the organization will inevitably face. Gain alignment on the new vision. The key idea in this step is to ensure that the organization is aligned on a common future state, and on the plan of action to transform the organization from where it is now to where it will need to be to realize that future state. As mentioned above, the dynamics of alignment are quite different from the dynamics of consensus, or accord, or agreement. The goal of alignment is not simple acquiescence to the new direction (from having been worn-down by the advocates, or due to deference to their position and title), nor should it be a blended hodge-podge of ideas from every constituency. In fact, in many cases, there will necessarily be parts of the change effort that people will not agree with, and, in deed, may never be able to agree with. (If everyone agrees, it is probably not a transformational change, in any event.) Rather, it must be a signing-on process that requires the members to consciously and formally accept the direction the organization is going, and to commit their personal and organizational resources to make it successful. Alignment is a very significant step, and should be carefully obtained on a person-by-person basis. Those who cannot become aligned cannot be part of the transformation. This alignment dialogue must ensure that these individuals have an opportunity to be heard, and to fully express their misgivings, problems, and alternatives. In particular, they must be required to specify exactly what must happen in order for them to become aligned. Those leading the change must then respond by either altering the change environment and direction so that it complies with these new requirements, which now creates the conditions for alignment, or they must work with the individual to find another role that is not part of the change effort. Spread change to all departments without pushing it from the top. It is very important to connect everybody during transformational change. This connectivity not only facilitates communication, but also helps to create an environment of collaboration that will be essential in ensuring that the right ideas are being implemented, and that when problems arise they are being rapidly identified and corrected by the best minds and skills in the firm. Institutionalize change through formal policies, systems, and structures. The more the organization reinforces its true commitment to the change, the more likely is its success. Nothing speaks louder to employees about what an organization thinks is important than its bureaucracies. Consequently, it is important to ensure that the fundamental operating processes and policies not only acknowledge that change is happening but also are adjusted to support and enhance the new and emerging realities. Establish quantitative targets for measuring improvements and progress. It is very important for the organization to have an objective set of tangible milestones and benchmarks that everyone can recognize and to which they can relate. This helps maintain focus, as well as provides a way for people to see how their efforts are contributing to the total result. Monitor and adjust strategies in response to problems in the change process. Finally, while agility and flexibility are always valuable characteristics in a company, they become especially important during transformational change. This is because in so many cases both the future state and the action plan are fraught with uncertainties and unknowns. As the plan evolves and the organization begins to learn, it is vital that this learning be captured in revised plans, directions, and processes. During changes of this type and magnitude, the individual employees are very sensitive to anything that indicates a lack of commitment on the part of the enterprise. Pressing on with out-dated ideas or on a plan that is not relevant or compatible with current events signals this lack of organizational awareness and commitment to the workers, which undermines the entire process.

With any change process, there always arises the question of pace. That is, how fast should the change happen? For transformational change, it is almost always best to move as fast as possible. There will be many rationales for slowing things down, or for sequencing and single-threading various stages in particular ways. These must be resisted. The elements of successful transformational change are fragile and have a short shelf life. The action plan should be built on an extremely fast track, and then calibrated as work progresses. The organization will tell the leadership team whether change is happening too rapidly. In fact, a useful guideline is that if there are as many people saying that it is going too fast, as those who feel it is too slow, then the pace is probably right. Most change efforts fail because they move too slowly, not because they move too quickly.

A second common discussion regarding transformational change involves people and their level of alignment to the case for change and to the change process itself. To facilitate understanding this phenomenon, it is frequently valuable to organize employees that are affected by the change into three distinct groups: Group A understands the case for change, wants to be part of the new vision, and has the skills to get there Group B, same as Group A, but does not yet have the skills Group C, either can not, or will not, become aligned with the new vision

This is a very important process. Those in Group A should become the advocates and change agents to help implement the action plan, and to actively interact with the rest of the organization to listen, learn, and support the process. Those people in Group B need to be mentored and trained so that they can bring their skills and expertise up to a level that will allow them to move into Group A.

The employees in Group C pose the most problematic issues for the company. These people must be moved to other roles, either inside the company, or, if necessary, out of the company so that they do not become impediments or saboteurs (either knowingly or unknowingly) of the process. They cannot be part of the process.

This may seem uncaring. But, in fact, it is in the best interests of everyone. If someone is not able to become aligned with the new vision, then they are not going to be happy or productive in that environment, and their lack of alignment will pose continuing problems for the rest of the organization as they attempt to change everyone else’s mind, or use each minor set back to demonstrate the validity of their original concerns.

Further, this is especially true of those in Group C who have been the best performers and the star producers. The rest of the organization looks very carefully at how these individuals are treated. If they are left to continue to perform and behave as they have in the past, then the other employees are forced to conclude that the company is not really committed to the change, which further weakens their own resolve and commitment. More importantly, these previous high-performers, if left to operate on their own without requiring their alignment will tend, both consciously and subconsciously, to undermine the change process. This is because other employees look up to them. They have been thought leaders in the company. Consequently, when their natural cynicism and lack of urgency regarding the change reveals itself in both subtle and direct ways, it dramatically poisons the atmosphere for collaboration and the drive for success.

Stephen Covey has offered some excellent insights into the nature of these types of transformational changes and the role of the individual. These ideas describe the important linkage between broad organizational change and the change required within each employee. A main feature of Covey’s thinking in this area centers on trust and its role as a fundamental building block for any change effort. Covey outlines four relationship levels that are important to understand in this regard: Personal, i.e., before someone else can trust an individual, that individual must be trustworthy. This is central to everything else. Each individual must recognize that they must earn the trust of others first. If this trustworthiness is not experienced, then there is no foundation upon which a larger relationship can successfully be built. Inter-Personal, i.e., interactions among people must be based on a sense of commitment to hold each other accountable for the promises we make to each other. It is, of course, never acceptable to break a promise. But, even further, it is also not acceptable for a promise to be broken by someone else without constructively discussing it with that individual. It is vital to make it clear that such promises are considered personal pacts whose explicit commitments to each other form the glue that holds the entire organization together. Managerial, i.e., managers must create an environment that allows workers to be heard, and to express themselves, as well as an environment that allows workers to grow and develop in ways that challenge and excite them, in other words, where they feel empowered. In this context it is important to recognize that empowerment is not a state that anyone can legitimately bestow upon another. Empowerment lies solely in the mind and emotions of the individual. People decide for themselves if they are empowered. It is, however, the leadership of the organization that has the ability and the responsibility for creating the conditions necessary for empowerment to emerge and thrive. Organizational, i.e., the final level addresses the need for alignment among all the constituencies that are relevant to the change.

Covey points out that the change process needs to start inward at the personal level, and then move outward, level by level, towards the organization. Moreover, it is important that levels not be skipped. In other words, all four levels must be in harmony for the desired results to be achieved.

A transition management team can be a useful organizational tool to help oversee large-scale corporate change efforts. It is important to point out, however, that transformational change is not a project in the normal sense. Rather, it is more of a journey of discovery. There must be a plan, of course, but transformational change to a large extent is highly organic in nature. It cannot be overly constrained, or artificially accelerated, without incurring large and unpredictable negative consequences. It’s natural flow and dynamics must be revealed, and then nurtured and allowed to flourish.

If a transition management team is created, it can provide the organization with several benefits: Establishes a context for the change and provides guidance, as needed Communicates and reinforces the shared vision Facilitates gaining alignment of ideas and projects Stimulates conversation, and makes it easy to converse on the important topics Provides appropriate resources, and has the power to start and stop projects Coordinates and align projects to ensure everything fits Ensures congruence of messages, activities, policies, and behaviors so that ideas, measures, behaviors, and rewards all match Provides opportunities for learning and sharing of information Anticipates, identifies, and helps managers address people problems

Finally, as with the comments made earlier regarding the importance of calibrating the appropriate pace of change, it is similarly important to be sensitive to the various guideposts along the way that mark its progress. The following ideas summarize criteria for helping an organization assess how well their transformational change effort is actually proceeding: The managers are committed to the new vision and believe it is in their best interests to make it successful The managers and leaders, themselves, are personally and actively using and living the principles that define this new reality, and there is strong evidence that their staffs are behaving in the same way The discussions in meetings are focused more towards how to implement, rather than why New ideas and innovations are coming bottom up at a rapid pace, and less top down Business units and teams treat internal customers like the organization would like to treat its external customers Learning is institutionalized and is becoming more routine Continuous improvement is a way of life and quantitative, fact-based measurement oriented mechanisms are routinely built into the key business processes and are beginning to be used for decision making

Back to top