“Do you want change plan adherence OR tangible impact? You can’t have both so make a choice…”
This was a career-defining decision that I presented to my client lead at the onset of a CEO-sponsored rollout of a cultural operating system for a global mining conglomerate.
I explained that adherence to a change plan and performance improvement follow two parallel paths that are unlikely to ever intersect – one must intentionally deviate from the change plan to realise tangible performance improvements.
More concretely, the success or failure of a change rollout hinges on how well a change team oscillates between ticking off all the required milestones and activities listed in the deployment plan whilst concurrently accommodating the critical needs of their intended change audience.
Managing the tension between change plan adherence vs. its customisation is at the heart of making change impactful, and sustainable..
Every Change Plan is based on a ‘best guess’
Every plan is based on a collection of ‘best guess’ assumptions compiled into an impressive-looking roadmap, featuring Gantt charts, milestones, training activities, etc.
These plans are created by well-meaning individuals who, more often than not, are far removed from the actual place and people who are the target audience, or ‘beneficiaries’, of the impending change.
The apparent gap in ‘worldview’ between planner and end user results in a plan that does not effectively consider the actual needs, working environment, maturity level, or capabilities of those it aims to impact. As a result, merely following the plan to the letter and hoping it will automatically lead to tangible performance impact is rather unrealistic.
Following the process, in this case, does not lead to the desired outcomes.
Deviate to drive adoption, and sustainable impact
Amongst many things to get right when rolling a large-scale change initiative, I want to focus on three areas that, when done right, significantly increase your chances of a successful implementation. They consist of:
1) Interpret the ‘reason for change’ for each hierarchical level
Most change plans rely on corporate jargon to explain the reasons for the change in an attempt to make a compelling case for its adoption. However, team members are unlikely to be convinced, or emotionally connect with such a vision, likely interpreting it as ‘this is just a way to make more money for the shareholders.’
For people to engage authentically, the rationale for the change needs to be crystal clear and personal, allowing them to answer the questions, ‘Will this make my life easier or more difficult, and will it work as promised?’
Crafting a powerful message that frames the change in terms of emotional and rational benefits for a particular workstream (such as ‘these tools will give you back control over how you do your work’ etc.) will result in a increased willingness to ‘give it a go’ and result in lower levels of resistance by providing ‘meaning’.
2) Tailor training delivery to respective levels of maturity
Most change initiatives adopt a one-size-fits-all strategy, prioritising convenience during the planning phase at the expense of subsequent effectiveness. Such an approach fails to account for the significant variations in maturity and experience across teams. This misalignment causes training efforts to fall short of their intended impact, rendering the substantial investments in these activities ineffective.
For example, exposure to popular methodologies like lean or agile significantly varies from one workstream to the next. Relying on generic training material risks it being perceived as either too complex or too simplistic by different groups. Failing to cater to these varying latent training needs negatively impacts participant engagement and encourages ‘pretending to go along’ behaviour, thereby severely undermining the intended impact of the training.
3) Sequence how the change, training, and tools are rolled out
Change never occurs in a vacuum. Employees are expected to juggle their ongoing operational responsibilities and meet performance targets while also making themselves available to get up to speed with the new ways of working.
The presence of these competing commitments—making the numbers and implementing the new ways of working—forces change recipients to prioritise how they allocate their limited attention between these two opposing priorities.
This assigns a substantial responsibility to change agents to identify and prioritise the most relevant and impactful tools for each workstream from the outset, likely requiring a deliberate departure from the original change plan.
By focusing on demonstrating the tangible benefits and ‘proof of concept’ of a single change tool—rather than attempting to push out the entire suite at once—change agents can effectively gain the end users trust and enhance their willingness to trial and adopt additional tools.
What makes this approach incredibly powerful is its thoughtful consideration of the end users’ limited bandwidth, acknowledging the ever-present tension of achieving targets while simultaneously implementing change.
Typically, change agents are incentivised to deploy their entire change agenda in one fell swoop. However, by refraining from overwhelming end users with a whole range of change tools that will only be relevant later. Trust is built as end users witness the effectiveness of this focused introduction, paving the way for the gradual rollout of additional tools down the road.
Impact stems from translating change intent
In summary, the change plan should never be viewed as the ‘one source of truth’ but rather as a compilation of ‘best guess’ theories on how to improve organisational performance—no more, no less.
By all means, follow it but do so with caution.
It is worth reiterating that the success or failure of any large-scale transformation is determined by the change team’s ability to interpret, translate, and disseminate the actual intent of the change by adapting the plan—within the boundaries of what is possible—to satisfy the essential functional and emotional needs of the target audience.
Reverting back to my mining client scenario from the beginning, out of the numerous global change teams, all of which relied on the identical deployment plan, the results were staggering—teams that followed the plan to the letter achieved the lowest adherence rates, and several failed to achieve the most basic objectives.
The change teams that played within the boundaries of what is possible and were able to capture the change intent surpassed all expectations in regard to change adoption levels and desired sustainable impact.
My client lead decided to trust my judgement, and our deployment ended up becoming the ‘best practice implementation case’ across their global operations.
