When change ends too soon
Everything was actually going well: The facility management function was converted from a centralized to a regional structure, and parallel areas were merged. Our client's project had been professionally planned with the help of internal organizational development experts and the new organizational structure had been implemented in close cooperation with the works council - on time and on budget.
Nevertheless, considerable difficulties arose after the go-live. I was called in during various workshops, as many things were simply not working and paralyzing, lengthy coordination and clarification processes were making work much more difficult. But why?
Was it due to the communication about the change process?
Possibly, because the goals and benefits were only vaguely formulated. Terms such as greater efficiency are difficult to grasp, especially if it is not clear where and how this efficiency is to be achieved. It seemed to me that many employees had simply not understood what the previous structures had been dissolved for / against. As a result, there was little motivation to support or even help shape the change.
Was it due to a lack of skills for the new roles?
Probably not. The framework conditions and specialist skills remained almost the same in the new set-up. There were also no staff reductions, the actual work was essentially continued as before.
Was it the project management?
No, and maybe yes... No, because project management was basically carried out professionally.
But also yes: because, in my opinion, the project work was stopped too early.
I see this as a common problem in organizational change projects: A project team has the new structure in mind - i.e. the new organizational structure and the new roles. The project is usually under enormous pressure, especially in the last third of the project work. What a relief when you finally reach the go-live date.
Unfortunately, however, processes are too often only viewed superficially. The assumption that ‘it will work itself out’ then leads to a lot of chaos in practice. Even after the new organizational structure goes live, central processes and changed role requirements do not automatically adapt to the new situation. It then jerks properly, but does not adjust.
One example: After the reorganization, signatures were still required from departments in certain processes. Unfortunately, these simply no longer existed. Flexibility is required - but as a result, employees are irritated, and they make sure their bosses are satisfied - who then experience a significantly higher workload. As a result, decisions take longer because nobody really wants to take responsibility for processes that are not clearly regulated. The pressure from internal and external partners increases, and after a short time everyone is overloaded and annoyed by this change.
What can be done to prevent this?
The answer is actually quite simple: you have to think things through to the end, because successful change requires sufficient work on three levels (see Loebbert, 2015)
- Creating meaning - planned communication: everyone involved should understand what the change is for and what it is against.
- Professional project management - the organization must plan the changes well and implement them quickly.
- Roles and processes - the new roles and the associated changes to processes must be clarified and communicated. It may be necessary to adapt competencies.
And here, in our customer's reorganization project, it was precisely the last point in the list that was not completed in my opinion. The roles were clear so far. But the process changes had not been sufficiently taken into account.
It is very understandable: reorganizations are always very stressful for everyone involved. And of course, project teams and managers are happy when they can finally complete a change process. However, it is too often overlooked that the processes and roles need to be clarified, adapted and communicated on a day-to-day basis. When it then becomes clear that there is still work to be done, there is sometimes no energy, budget or management will left. And you look away or move on to the next topic (forwards) - and leave the employees alone with the aftermath of the unfinished change.
The consequences are serious: if too much remains unclear in the start-up phase, there is unnecessarily great confusion. The new doesn't seem any better than the supposedly good old and, in case of doubt, the workforce remains in the old, previous working mode despite the new roles. After all, the previous processes at least worked and are familiar to everyone. Perhaps this explains why it has been reported again and again for years that the majority of all change projects fail to achieve their goals (see Failure in change projects - Versus Magazine.)
Conclusion: The success of the critical initial phase of the new project guarantees the success of the entire project work. It therefore seems advisable to me to precisely define the process organization at an early stage in addition to the organizational structure. The go-live is important - but it is by no means the end of the project. Process and clarification workshops during the sensitive start-up phase should be planned and budgeted for in advance. Competent internal or external moderators should be available and quickly deployable.
What experiences have you had with change projects that ended too early?
We look forward to your comments.
