Can change be an opportunity to enhance employee engagement?

So frequently, a period of change results in severe damage to relationships between the company, its managers and employees rather than the positive, trouble-free experience we envisage at the outset. When asked, people at all levels in the organisation will site the same lack of communication or uncaring attitudes as their reason for dissatisfaction. Frequently, one hears ‘It wasn’t the change itself that I objected to; it was the way it was done.’

In a company I recently observed, managers and staff were equally disgruntled by the process of change, with each uncertain about the likely success of the initiative. Neither group felt included in decisions about the programme or its objectives, and none felt they were clear about how the result would be achieved. An external team was responsible for decisions and were keeping the operation in the dark, fuelling speculation and distrust. Managers felt guilty that their teams weren’t being treated with more respect, and their sense of powerlessness was amplified by frustration at not being asked to contribute their views.

We have all experienced change that has not been well handled, and each of us determines to role model a good change process when our next opportunity arises. We decide to:

• involve our teams in the process itself
• consult relevant people
• keep everyone well informed
• share responsibility where appropriate and possible
• be clear in all our communications with staff
• ensure communication is two way

But when so many changes face difficulty at some stage, it is clear that good intentions fail to materialise more frequently than we would like. What happens to cause this gulf between intention and execution? And how could the chance of success be increased or even guaranteed?

Well, the first question to answer is ‘What characterises a successful implementation?’ What are we hoping to see?

I think we would all readily identify a number of indicators we would choose for ourselves:

• Managers buy in to the changes and support the programme to the best of their ability
• People at all levels contribute their ideas to improve the project outcomes as it applies to them at the appropriate time
• Resistance is limited to constructive criticism and becomes a positive force for improvement
• Productivity remains at least constant during the changes, with people feeling they can achieve their work amid the changes
• Stress levels remain within reasonable boundaries despite increased pressure in all quarters

These are indicators of an engaged and productive workforce where inclusive policies are practiced with success. And we would all admit to starting our change project with the intention to achieve this outcome. But what stops us achieving this?

The first barrier is reality. Our intentions may be laudable, but reality steps in and we find our time and energy hijacked. Demands on our time and emotional energy can quickly become very great, forcing us to focus on the essentials and leave the tasks we could perhaps categorise as ‘nice to have’. The end result is that tasks that seem lower priority don’t get done. These could include time-consuming one to one and group communications and leadership activities to support our team. We have already begun to fail.

The second barrier is lack of detailed planning. Our plans need to be written and include all leadership and communication activities interrelated with the change itself, training activities, system changes, HR activities and any facilities changes. They need to be reverse-engineered, setting out the goals on a timeline and reverse planning the activities to put them in place on time. Priorities and pressures soon become apparent before events overtake judgement.

The third barrier is lack of risk planning. A critical preparation activity is to brainstorm risk and classify it against likelihood and impact. How likely is it that the risk will occur, and if it did, what would be the impact on the project or change? Once the risk impact is clear, priority can be put on those that are likely and will have the highest impact. It is important not to ignore those that aren’t very likely, but would have a very high impact if they did happen. Activities can then be added to the plan to mitigate the risks and contribute to a sense of control and good management. The activities that usually appear in the high risk and high impact category almost always include staff relations or key staff losses, indicating that the soft communication and leadership activities must take high priority during change.

The forth barrier is limited vision. It is possible to use change as a golden opportunity to develop magnificent relationships between staff and managers, and bring a culture of engagement and inclusion to life. But how can this be done?

The secret is in including a cultural vision within the change planning process and using the change as a stepping stone towards that vision. That means being concerned both about WHAT is to be achieved and HOW it is being achieved. For instance, if your cultural assessment has shown that your people want to have more involvement in decisions and your managers seem reticent to engage their teams when contributions would be helpful, you might include experiential training events for managers to help them learn the skills for inviting involvement and contribution, using the change as a practical opportunity.

I was privileged to attend a team meeting with a recent client undergoing a merger. That unit would merge with their counterpart in the incoming organisation and some redundancies would result. Service would be redesigned to take account of the different processes used in each organisation, and produce a harmonious operation. Everyone could see there would be a lot of work to do before that goal would be reached, and there was excitement and some trepidation about it. The manager had clearly taken the step of deciding they would develop a culture of inclusion and engagement at the outset, and was clear with the team that their input was needed to make the plan and assess the risks to ensure all the bases were covered. They chose not to rely on themself alone and to devolve a measured degree of responsibility and accountability to the team. The team responded to the trust shown in them and voiced their concerns and ideas freely, giving them the feeling that they had been heard and treated with respect and importance. As they came to a shared consensus on next steps as the meeting came to a close, each felt calm and satisfied that the coming weeks would be difficult, but they were all pulling together and had a robust process that would enable them to succeed. Ownership had been shared and all minds were focused on tracking and resolving issues before they became a problem.