Global Capability for Change Survey Results

Melanie Franklin explains that connecting change management value to ROI requires transforming subjective measures into objective, measurable outcomes. The key technique involves repeatedly asking “What will you notice?” or “What does that do?” to move from intangible concepts to concrete metrics.

For example, if we claim that as a result of change management activities staff are confident with the new ways of working, we have to describe that in ways that directly link to business benefits. If they are more confident, they get on with the work, they ask fewer questions, there are less delays with completing the work because they are not waiting for answers on how to proceed, so the elapsed time to complete the task is shorter so efficiency is greater.

Melanie Franklin notes that staff welfare and stress reduction as a reason for developing change capability has actually fallen from 16% to 13% in this year’s survey. She observes that workplace well-being is becoming a lower priority for senior leaders compared to previous years. From feedback in focus groups and further research, senior leadership focus has shifted away from welfare metrics to a focus on efficiency, productivity and growth.

Melanie Franklin explains that portfolio management is fundamentally a cause that fuels the other challenges. Portfolio management provides the vital information that enables effective change management and leadership engagement. Without portfolio management, leaders lack a holistic picture of all changes and how they fit together. This prevents alignment between strategy and change activities. Leaders cannot identify gaps or missing capabilities without this understanding. Melanie explained that in many of her training sessions leaders are asking for practical techniques to create orientation and understand what’s happening.

Melanie Franklin reveals that the failure to include change activities in role descriptions creates an impossible work situation where employees are expected to deliver 100% on their defined role while also managing undefined change responsibilities – leading to inevitable failure and poor experience. Only 11% include change activities, meaning 89% of role descriptions do not include the change management responsibilities that everybody is bearing. “If we put this into people’s role descriptions, then ultimately they are performance managed against it”. This would make change a legitimate part of work, not an optional extra and would provide time, resources, and accountability for change activities.

Melanie explains that while there are many data points, “there seemed to be some key themes that kept emerging and we were able to draw these together.” To start with, there is a fundamental failure to be able to establish that what we do is valuable and relevant to the business – organizations aren’t measuring effectiveness or benefits

“We start with the value of Change Management and the fundamental failure to be able to establish that what we do is valuable and relevant to the business”. This has “a big impact on…the lack of leadership for Change management”

Melanie explained that there is vicious circle here because the lack of leadership commitment creates the perception that Change Management is a low priority. If something is not seen as valuable then leaders do not commit to it.

The lack of leadership is driving a lack of portfolio management which is a failure to identify all of the changes that are taking place and the coordination of all of those change initiatives.

When leaders don’t commit and when leaders don’t role model, it makes people feel that any effort they’re putting into the changes is perhaps worthless. This poor experience of change decreases the willingness of managers and teams to build their capability for change.

Melanie Franklin reveals that leaders view change leadership through three distinct lenses: optimistic, pessimistic, and what she calls “arrogant.” The data shows a leadership cohort more focused on self-protection than change success.

The pessimistic group believe it is it’s “safer to leave change to someone else” to avoid being “tainted by association” if things go wrong (30%), or view it as a “risky career defining moment where failure could derail their career” (20%)

The arrogant group believe change is “something they should be able to naturally do” (29%) or “something they naturally do” (11%)

The optimistic group believe “it’s safer to take ownership so they know it’s going to be done properly” (16%) and 24% see it as a “career defining moment and a way to make their mark”

Melanie Franklin identifies multiple concrete leadership failures that directly impact change success, with communication and role modelling emerging as critical gaps. 60% of respondents believe that communication is poor overall, with 39% of respondents stating that leaders communicate at the start but do not sustain this engagement throughout the change. Only 24% of leaders role model changes which is down from 40% last year.

Melanie Franklin explains that leadership failures directly create the poor experience that drives cynicism and withdrawal, affecting future change initiatives in a compounding negative spiral. People are less willing to engage, and slower to act on future changes if their most recent experience of change has been negative.

Melanie Franklin reveals that senior leaders are experiencing their own crisis of overwhelm and lack practical techniques for understanding the full scope of change happening in their organizations. Leaders “really don’t know how much change is happening or how it all links together” which is creating a level of concern amongst some leaders, as they feel unable to navigate the volume of change they are experiencing. This impacts their ability to communicate to their teams, because they do not feel they have a complete picture.

Without understanding all the changes taking place, it is difficult to prioritise the critical changes from other ideas. Often they select based on a feeling of what is right, rather than a set of criteria they can apply to every change.

Melanie Franklin reveals a critical disconnect: while 57% of organizations believe change management is important, they’re failing to take the fundamental steps needed to build capability. The main culprit is that change remains a “side of the desk” activity rather than a core job responsibility.

Only 11% include change activities in role descriptions (meaning 89% don’t). This means change activities are a “side of the desk” activity, which means they are abandoned when pressures from “business as usual” work build up.

If change activities were included as part of the role description, then they form part of performance management, which means they are less likely to be abandoned when things get busy.

Melanie Franklin highlights a massive missed opportunity: only 15% of organizations involve HR and Learning & Development at the beginning of change, despite these functions holding the expertise needed to build capability effectively.

If HR were involved earlier, it is likely that change would be reflected in role descriptions, and there would be an increase in “the number who train managers when they need to lead/manage change programmes from 16%”

Melanie Franklin identifies three reinforcing failure loops that fuel poor change experience: unmanaged volume, lack of support, and absence of empowerment. These create a system where employees are overwhelmed, unsupported, and powerless to influence their situation.

Only 12% of respondents believe their level of change is manageable, and Melanie explained that at every focus group and training course, the most frequently asked question is “how do we create the time for change?”

Only 23% of respondents believe that “those who struggle to change feel supported” and only 31% “feel empowered to get things done”. Melanie commented that this fall in empowerment perhaps is less about being given authority and control over their work and is more about being blocked by a lack of time to get things done.

Melanie Franklin connects poor change experience directly to staff turnover costs, making the business case that poor experience is not just a “soft” HR issue but a hard financial impact that hits the bottom line immediately. A negative experience of change is a cost to the business which can nullify the benefits of implementing change.

“43% of respondents felt that leaders do not take staff on the journey with them which leads to staff churn”

Data from talent management sources place the cost of replacement between 50% to 200% of the leaver’s salary” which includes direct expenses: recruiting, hiring, and training; indirect costs: lost productivity, loss of corporate memory and knowledge; time spent by other employees onboarding new colleagues.