Here’s the first truism: most of the human population fears change…any change. Change is interpreted by most people as being something bad or unwanted that is going to happen to them. Mostly people resist change because they have grown attached to (and they like) what is familiar to them. Familiarity breeds comfort…change what is familiar and you take away comfort.
However, change and adaptation are also two of the most powerful forces in life – in the case of all living things. Charles Darwin, during his close examination of living things over many years, concluded that those living things which are most adaptable to change are the ones which survive. And those that don’t adapt, inevitably perish.
A good leader is constantly looking for plausible ways to change/ improve the organization that they are responsible for leading. Good/ effective leaders know that to stop exploring and adopting options for change can mean that the organization that they are leading stagnates, becomes ineffective and eventually uncompetitive.
Change implies – and yes, it in fact means – a certain amount of disruption to the status quo. It can mean changing practices, changing procedures, changing published information, changing systems, changing products/ services, changing people and/ or their functions…but most of all it does mean something different occurs.
The most disruptive form of change occurs when change is more or less forced/ inflicted upon other people – when people are obligated to comply, where little or no prior consultation has been offered and the affected people haven’t had any/ much input into the change concerned. This type of change typically invokes high levels of stakeholder resistance, because change has been inflicted upon them and not managed-through with them.
The least disruptive form of change occurs when the change management process involves the change instigator (e.g. a CEO/ Board of Directors) moving through these deliberate steps:
Phase One – the change instigator finalizes the scope and detail of the proposed change – which has resulted from having invited input from whatever stakeholders beforehand. The detail includes an in-depth analysis of the predicted impact of the proposed change on both the stakeholder group as a whole plus on individual stakeholders.
Phase Two – the change instigator presents both the proposed change and the perceived implications/ consequences of the proposed change to the stakeholder group. The primary purpose of this first round of disclosure is to ensure that a high level of inclusivity is achieved, to test stakeholder reaction and to field feedback from stakeholders as to what elements of the proposal (if any) should be altered in order to make the proposal more palatable for stakeholders (and therefore enjoy greater success of being supported/ adopted by stakeholders).
Phase Three – the change instigator makes adjustments to the change proposal in order to make it more palatable for at least the majority of stakeholders, and then re-presents it to stakeholders for their reaction and feedback…and hopefully their adoption (if so required).
Change that is effected by leaders working with the stakeholders who are to be impacted by the relevant change typically invokes the least resistance by stakeholders…because stakeholders are inherently involved in shaping and making the change throughout the change process.
The role of directors is to ensure that presented change proposals:
- Have received their prior support/ authorization to be presented to the wider stakeholder group.
- Reflect the best interests of at least the majority of the wider stakeholder group.