Involve Managers and Staff in the work of change management

Many Change Managers assume that if the rationale for change is made clear to the organisation then they will go along with it. In the process of demonstrating the need to change and an understanding of the impact (on themselves and their group) employees will buy- in and thereafter work actively to realise it. There is an assumption behind all this that ‘Change’ is negotiated and develops over time and that the change agent’s task is merely to make clear the imperatives and the people will fall into place.

Whilst this approach has been criticised for ignoring political and social aspects within organisations it is also inaccurate when talking about major system changes, outsourcing or mergers/acquisitions where we are faced with transitioning organisations against a strict deadlines. Here the degrees of freedom are limited and failure to successfully implement can result in stiff penalties for time and cost overruns. In such circumstances our room for ‘negotiation’ is constrained, the change outcome is a given and the people affected are faced with a forced change.

Also we see that the complexity of change is increasing as many major programmes consist of several, in their own right, substantial tasks. For example, in one major change programme I worked on the client was disentangling from a parent company and implementing an IT system with new standardised processes. All of these forcing substantial changes in role and responsibilities right across the organisation – and this programme also included the outsourcing of substantial parts of the finance function!

As well as the staff managers are affected – with perceived loss in autonomy and the need to acquire new skills key concerns. In another change programme in which the author was involved the financial controller had a significant change in job scope as a result of a system implementation and outsourcing which involved the loss of fifty percent of her staff. This resulted in prevarication and concentration on detail, non-acceptance of the rationale for change and question/problem raising that came over to the central project team as structural resistance.

The focus of our intervention in this case was on a country unit that had specific change issues that made their changeover have high perceived business risk. This unit for example had already gone through several changes of ownership in the last few years and was heavily impacted again. Our first step was to understand how the change impacted on the group, department and individuals within the business. Change needed to be thought through and the changes in role and task for these three areas were worked through in detail.

The intervention strategy we considered was based around thinking through to what the changed organisation would look like when we were finished. The patterns of communication, the new roles and responsibilities, and the impact on individual jobs were considered then the transition needed to bridge from the current situation to the future mapped out. This defined the necessary training and coaching for the individuals over and above that already covered in the formal training programmes. The transition management was trickier and this was handled by facilitating the cutover planning at group level. This acted to involve the organisation in the changeover (it’s on ‘its’ way) and engaged them in participating in the design of the move process itself. Defining in detail the roles, tasks and timings during the cutover were key aspects of this intervention. Further, interviews and group meetings around the changeover allowed ‘voice’ to be given and concerns and issues to be fully surfaced – they raised the resistance and helped solve them.

Key learning points

Do not interpret all resistance as opposition to change. Opposition can often be a sign of interest in the outcome and an expression of legitimate concern Capture the concerns and rationale. It may be that someone has identified a flaw in our reasoning and may have identified a route to possible failure, perhaps from the last time this occurred. To find out why it did not work last time may reveal some interesting lessons. However, be cautious about agreeing with an issue as this may be interpreted as a sign that the change can be negotiated – capture without judgement.

The assumption that all employees will go through the same cycle of resistance is false and too simplistic. Often there are winners in a change process. Identify these and build coalitions to build a success culture. Also some departments or groups of people are more successful with handling change than others – building on these winning groups can help bring the whole organisation along.

We all know the value of clear communication but do not forget to include the need for relevancy. Exhortations of the value of the change at a high level are useless unless made clearly relevant to the people affected. The communication must be tuned to the hearers specific needs – general broadcasts are discounted and people will provide their own rationale for change processes.

Avoid the ‘Englishman on Holiday’ change strategy – ‘if they don’t understand speak slowly and more loudly!’ At a feedback meeting for research into the situation at a French plant the consultants gave a withering overview of the impact of the various initiatives, changes and improvement programmes a major high technology company was imposing on the factory. The response from the senior team – ‘the management have not explained this clearly enough therefore “they” do not understand it – they must do it again’. People in change need focused information – how does this new system affect me. Will I still have a job? Will I be able to cope – will they train me? This means communications must be relevant, focused and bespoke aimed at a segmented audience – don’t treat people as the same with the same vanilla information requirements.

Some interventions

Local briefings at department or group level to strengthen team feelings of unity and develop focus on the task in hand.
Cutover process – form well managed meetings to act as a resolution point for raising and solving problems.

Tighter linkage to the changeover (particularly for the management) to expose the organisation to the task and encounter change.

• Activate processes to resolve/close personnel issues — close these issues managers often have difficulty in handling these.
• Mentor the management to actively participate and lead change via the consultant is an essential task.
• Visible presence of change manager to emphasise the company’s commitment to making the change.
• Reflect listen but not judge issues — allow self-reflection.
• Ensure communications is done (Watch for gate-keeping in one project when I checked the communications had got no further than the secretary)
• Provide recognition of improvements ideas and try to push upwards any ideas the team have that have value however small.
• Recognise that resistance is a legitimate concern for the well-being of the business.
• Ensure communication channels are open and deployed (again this is sometimes not done).
• Hire consultant to act as change focus (reflecting with support but not judging or leading)
• Tighter engagement of the organisation into the change process — they will switch to solve mode.

Finally don’t assume managers know how to manage change or know how to help their people change – because often they do not. Special training and development is necessary. Also be sure that the management has bought in, in one case the stiffest resistance came from a senior leader whose scepticism fed the resistance of the whole team.

Royston

So what are the pros and cons of outsourcing?

The potential from outsourcing and BPO related activities:

• Savings in terms of cost from labour arbitrage
• Productivity improvements from access to experienced and up-to-date skills
• The potential to focus on the core business without the distractions of a difficult function in-house
• Enhanced access to expertise (but at a cost)
• Operational cost control as the cost becomes very transparent and controlled
• Improved accountabilityas you know who is responsible for what service
• Flexibility to reallocate resources and meet company goals
• Improved Human Relations management in terms of career development potential for peripheral functions.

As for the downside of outsourcing  the list would include the creation of a dependency mentality coupled with a  lack of innovation and integration with the core business – along with a loss of competitive edge. Outsourcing can garner these ill-effects mainly when used as a short term technique to reduce costs.  To avoid this Outsourcing has to be planned carefully going beyond mere cost control and with carefully thought-out strategies and logistics in place to ensure success. A productive nurturing culture is imperative, especially in the beginning, to set the backdrop for a successful relationship.

How to make the most of outsourcing

Apart from reducing the development time and the cost for example new services  an outsourcing relationship can free up resources and orient them towards innovation that can really add value to the core business. It is this potential for the sources of innovation to be focused on the core business competitive needs that is at the heart of the aphorism ‘to focus on core competences’ – In fact it means to build the core. There must also be good communications and systematic tracking and measures in place to help understand how the service is evolving and how improvements can be made. This goes well beyond simplistic SLA types of measures and is in fact an example of proactive innovation.  An outsourcing provider who is willing to learn and understand the business drivers of the client organisation and who can provide the right kind of expertise to a client at the right place can be a company sttrategic asset. The type of proactive innovation can make all the difference to an outsourcing partnership.

Tips for the Outsourcer

• Treat outsourcing as a strategic investment, clearly defining goals, strategies, objectives and time lines.
• Choose a firm that has goals you can identify with and a track record that you can use productively in your industry.
• Set up control processes to manage the interface between the two organisations – treat them as part of the business which is in fact what they become.
• Once you have outsourced a service  trust the service provider to do the job – heavy handed control or excessive monitoring can get in the way of good service and can only add to costs.
• Build a contract that has concrete objectives performance measurement strategies and incentives in place – this will clarify things for the provider and provide sustained motivation.

Tips for the provider

• As with the outsourcer outsourcing is a strategic investment – define goals, strategies and objectives.
• Build a contract with the client that spells out performance measurements on the basis of concrete objectives – use it to streamline processes
• Develop an open rapport with the client build a relation that aligns the interests of the outsourcer, the vendor and customers.
• Build a measurement system to montitor progress and make sure robust management processes. are in place – use it to negotiate changes and upgrade performance responsibilities.

The paranoia surrounding outsourcing is slowly waning and being replaced by a grudging acceptance and recognition of how both sides can benefit. Reports are coming in that well crafted outsource deals restate the value of outsourcing – and add to the stability of the concept. According to a Global Insight study sponsored by the ITAA (Information Technology Association of America), the benefits of offshore IT outsourcing added $33.6 billion to real gross domestic product in the United States in 2003. During 2008, real GDP was expected to be $124.2 billion higher than it would be in an environment without IT software and services offshore outsourcing.

There is value to be achieved by Outsourcing what is needed is a well crafted management strategy to deliver the promise that Outsourcing offers.

Royston

How to manage remote staff – tips and guidelines

Clarify types of remote working:

• Home-based
• Satellite offices
• Mobile
• Client based
• Part or full-time remote.
• Professional or clerical staff

Are different issues.

Myth 1– employees can take care of themselves
Myth 2– trust and control are easy
Myth 3 – unless I can see them they are not working

Successful virtual/remote working requires radical new approaches to evaluating, educating, organizing and informing workers.

Staff worry – that they will be forgotten, that they will lose promotion prospects, that they will not be trusted, that people will think they are not working when they are. Evidence is, may be benefits to both organization and individual but there really can be isolation, reduction in promotion, tendency to overwork and reduction of intra-organization communication, identification and (potentially) commitment.

Remoteness does have implications, don’t assume you know how to manage. As employees move away from office managers need to change their managerial style. There is a risk that managers can slip into communication patterns that are totally task oriented and miss verbal cues that let them know that these patterns are demotivating the staff.

Three different styles may be appropriate in different circumstances:

• At hands reach
• Collaboration
• Relationship and trust

Issues include: trust, identification, socialization, control

Remote/virtual staff must clearly understand why they exist and be able to translate their purpose into actions. Research suggests greatest problem for staff and managers is still communication. Managers must become results oriented, shift from being a controller to a leader or coach. Need to develop specialised communication and planning skills, including the ability to communicate well electronically.

Managers and supervisors should:

• Establish a relationship based on mutual confidence and trust.
• Ensure well structured, relevant and regular communications.
• Be available for consultation and advice – set expectations for response times (same day preferable). 
• Ensure technology and support easily available
• Enable and encourage good communication with other workers
• Jointly establish precise goals and objectives (and ensure resources available)
• Evaluate and feedback on a regular basis
• Ensure staff participate in organizational activities and are kept informed – don’t assume they have seen the intranet notices.
• Make sure managers and employees are clear on performance objectives and measurement.
• Pay close attention to peer relationships, set up buddy systems and agreed forms and frequencies of communication.
• Plan to communicate by f2f as well as telephone.
• Set up socialization events and/or drop in facilities, ensure these are genuinely encouraged.
• Certain areas demand f2f – particularly appraisals, salary reviews.
• Don’t just e-mail – think before you send. Relevance and impact in particular – how will the other party respond to this? Do they need to know?
• Re- educate managers and employees for a virtual culture, when and how often to communicate, when to talk vs. type, what to say etc.
• Ensure staff are trained in time management and how to establish effective off-site/client-site office.
• Set up a knowledge management/repository so staff can find out who can help on different issues.
• Set up mentoring and coaching programmes for new or inexperienced personnel.

Practical guidelines on monitoring

• Communicate goals clearly
• Set priorities
• Assess on results (set project milestones, hold periodic reviews, establish check-in periods and frequent updates)
• Agree on results indicators and how to track these
• Make sure/check that communications are clear and understood
• Get regular feedback from employees co-workers and customers
• Collect specific examples of performance related actions and results to facilitate objective performance discussions.

And do this all with an air of trust and confidence its a  balancing act for sure!

Need to focus on key areas such as communication, trust and control and expand on these.
Perhaps need to assess current mindsets and explode the myths etc.
Start by asking what problems they have in managing remote staff (if they think they don’t have any, ways to explore?)

So communication…

Consider aspects of office that technology not (yet) replaced:

• Corporate culture and socialization opportunities
• Creation of loyalty and identification
• Unplanned and f2f communications – can give additional information and assess attitudes or concerns.
• Control by observation
• Access to additional materials
• Symbols of corporate structure and political workings

Topics that may need addressing include team leadership, work-life balance, orienting new employees to culture and managing performance.

The nature of the information needs to be changed, as well as the medium.

It is recommended that companies:

• Institute new information flows to replace current ways of communication.
• Ensure all understand the strengths and weaknesses of various technologies for communicating in specific circumstances – aim to make communication more rational and considered.
• Educate all employees on how to be more effective providers and consumers of information.

The best practice of managing diversity at work

The business case for being positive about diversity at work is not just legal and financial; it is also closely linked to looking after your customers and your staff. Although many organisations are becoming more aware of the legal aspects of discrimination, a focus on the legislation will not change hearts and minds.

This article discusses what is meant by diversity, outlines the business case for taking a positive approach to diversity at work, and discusses the psychological underpinnings of related concepts such as stereotyping, prejudice and group membership. Most importantly it will highlight best practice for training and diversity awareness sessions, as recent research highlights that if not done correctly diversity training can actually make things worse.

What is diversity?

People vary in multiple ways, by age, personality, gender, ethnicity, religion, education, sexual orientation, morals, beliefs, hair colour, and shoe size, to name but a few! Sometimes these differences mean that some people are treated less favourably, or find things more difficult to do because of the way we create our environment to fit the ‘average’ person. Sometimes this makes people upset or angry, or they just ‘give-up’. Generally it can lead to misunderstandings and/or poor working relationships. Even if no harm was intended, in the wrong environment people can feel threatened and stressed if they perceive inequalities. It often means the organisation and the people in it are not working as effectively as they could.

The business case
Organisations in many parts of the world are beginning to take note of the benefits of a diverse and equal workforce. These include:

• Enhanced creativity
• Reduced employee stress
• Increased customer satisfaction (particularly where the customer profiles are matched with staff profiles)
• Reduced incidence of bullying or harassment
• Improved team-working

For many this has led to increased organisational performance and a reduction in problem behaviours, (some of which may result in legal claims).

Psychological underpinnings
A wide range of psychological processes underpin both the problems and the solutions to diversity in organisations.

These include:

• Group memberships – People have a strong need to feel part of the in-group. They like to identify with people who are similar to them and there is a strong drive to wish to differentiate from out-groups. This can lead to:
• Categorisation – lumping people together into groups because they seem to share characteristics. This process is very beneficial to us normally as it speeds up recognition, allowing us to see that a Poodle and a Great Dane are still examples of dogs for example (and therefore potentially dangerous if they bite). However as people are so complex this generalisation process is often misleading. It is linked to our need to use:
• Stereotyping – ideas are held about other people based solely on their membership of particular groups or their physical characteristics. Although useful when there is a need to make quick judgements (in evolutionary terms stereotyping has been helpful for our survival) they can be used unthinkingly to create prejudice and to justify discriminatory behaviour. Stereotyping can lead to prejudice – pre-judging people solely on the basis of some perceived difference.

Many of these processes are automatic, although in the right circumstances people can learn to reduce or control them. Understanding these processes, and why they are both useful and problematic, can also help us to understand which types of diversity training can be of most benefit.

Best practice for diversity training
Many organisations have started to include diversity awareness training as a standard; some are moving further forward into diversity management (which implies a step-change in systems and processes). However, some types of awareness training actually increase the processes of group membership and stereotyping, actually making the atmosphere at work worse! Groups can become defensive if made to feel responsible for inequalities and may increase their group cohesion by denigrating the out-group. Other activities have been known to increase anger, confusion, or to lead staff to deny that such situations exist in the workplace today.

The most successful interventions apply the concepts of social identity and enable re-categorisation (welcoming a broader membership into your in-group) and make salient the complexity of social identities. Such exercises have been shown to minimise bias and increase tolerance and positivity towards ‘out-groups’. Other successful interventions include simple stereotype activation sessions, where employees are then allowed to discuss why they were unable to consider non-stereotypical answers to scenarios. Examples of these include situations which can only be resolved by non-stereotypical gender roles, such as a female surgeon. Increasing awareness of our own cognitive biases and how the processes ‘work’ has been shown to increase participants’ motivation and willingness to change.

One important factor must be taken into account. Prejudice and discrimination are supported, or rejected, by organizational norms and values. Research indicates that people often become more prejudiced in public, because of the support they gain from others. Any diversity training must therefore start at the top and include everyone in the organisation, and systems and policies must be effective in demonstrating that the organisation is equal, open and fair.

Increasingly, HR Professionals are increasing their own knowledge of the psychological aspects of work, by studying advanced courses in occupational psychology or organizational behaviour. They wish to ensure that they fully understand the processes involved in their practice, and can ensure that any training and development, even if outsourced, is based on both theory and the latest evidence. Diversity is one of many areas in HR that can be more fully informed by considering psychological processes.

Performance measures help the managers of organisations to monitor performance and highlight problems within their areas that need attention. Problems in organisations tend to show through as symptoms in performance that result in deviations away from a desired norm. Symptoms show up as a change from an expected measure or just from a feeling of unease that some aspect of the business is not going well. Perhaps an environmental issue such as poor communications is suspected to be causing a problem that can be later traced back to some behavioural problem in a group or individual deep within the organisation – and far from where the symptom was felt.
Problems and their symptoms can occur at all levels of analysis within an organisation. From the Board Room via divisions, departments, groups and right down to individuals. Some types of problem occur in unexpected ways or appear suddenly such as the case of a competitor launching a new product that competes with your own but does so more effectively, cheaper and with better service. Or a sudden crisis blows up that has to be reacted to such as the credit crunch. What tends to happen in such areas is the problem is seen is a deviation in some form of qualitative or quantitative measure and this deviation can occur at some distance from the source of the problem itself. It is these symptoms that point to a problem deep within the organisation and give us the entry point to the diagnostic stage where the actual issue is pinpointed, the cause identified and solution proposed.
Some typical problems and symptoms to look would be:

• High or increasing absenteeism.
• Internal conflicts and tension between departments or individuals.
• Missed project deadlines or cost overruns.
• Performance and competitive symptoms such as:
• Falling market share overall.
• Declining profitability within certain product groups.
• Increases in numbers of calls at the service centre.
• Increasing waiting times as the accident and emergency department.

A common error is to not distinguish a problem from its symptoms, or to confuse a potential solution as the problem. For example it is common to identify Outsourcing a department as a problem to be addressed rather than a potential solution to some yet not understood problem. Also when an issue surfaces if it looks similar to one solved before managers and consultants will look for the cause of the problem close to where the symptom is occurring or to confuse the symptom with the problem and treat that rather then the underlying cause.
It is also common to assume that what worked last time will do as well now and the same solutions are proposed time and time again with ever diminishing returns. Research has shown different problems can manifest themselves in similar ways in terms of symptoms (such as declining market share). What can be seen as a symptom pointing to a specific local problem may only be a consequence of a much greater and broader issue in the organisation (such as a poor product development process resulting in product obsolescence hence market decline).
These sorts of effects can result in a false diagnosis of the problem and the potential over steering of a consultant during the initial assignment stages towards a particular given solution prior to any diagnosis being done. The problem is perceived as so evident that further diagnosis is redundant and a waste of money. Consultants will refer to this initial problem statement as the evoked problem. This is typically what would be described by the client to the consultant during the first meeting as the problem that must be looked at and good consultants use this to probe the problem space further whilst suspending judgement until at least some preliminary work has been done to identify the problem.
Clients should allow for this and treat with some suspicion any consultant who jumps straight away at the evoked definition of the problem or injects statements such as this problem is known, we have seen it before etc. – This is just demonstrating a simplistic understanding and is a danger sign that this consultant will be unsuitable.

Royston

Research on motivation and leadership continued for many years with little interaction between the two areas, although more recently motivational concepts have been drawn upon to understand leadership processes. Many motivational theories were posited to have direct implications for leader behaviour, however the evidence for motivational impact is unclear. As motivation is an abstract construct, motives can only be inferred from reports or performance outcomes, not directly measured. Making these inferences are difficult because of the complex, dynamic and multi-causal nature of the concept, and wide variations in expression, furthermore there is considerable debate concerning the nature of the Leadership construct, which we shall discuss elsewhere on the forum. These issues make an assessment of the impact (effect or influence) of leadership on motivation at work, a difficult task. So, do leaders motivate?

Firstly, we need to unpack a little what we mean by ‘motivation’. Definitions concern influences on the direction, vigour and persistence of action. Work contexts are broad and varied, however in most cases organizations need people to be attracted to their organization and stay, perform tasks in a dependable manner and to do so in creative and innovative ways. Whilst one could argue that the latter requirement is not always present in work situations, motivation is of increasing interest as a potential explanation for workers productivity, effort and attendance. How can we assess and measure what impact leadership has upon this process?

In many cases the impact of leadership on motivation tends to be inferred by outcomes, particularly focusing on group or company performance, although work has been carried out on absenteeism (see Porter, Bigley & Steers, 2003). However it is possible that a leader can motivate subordinates without this making any difference to effort or outcomes, conversely there are many other things a leader can do to improve performance that are not linked to motivation, therefore such studies are limited.

Other research uses multiple levels (e.g. follower, leader, leaders’ supervisor) often of performance ratings or constructs such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Although it has been suggested that more satisfied workers have a greater chance to perceive their jobs as motivating and take advantage of motivational interventions, the link between these concepts and motivation is unclear. Furthermore, research on attributional biases suggests individuals often view leaders as making a difference only in retrospect, therefore such ratings are prone to error (see e.g. Chemers 1997). Indeed such a broad range of measurement have been used, that this makes comparisons difficult, increasing the potential for confounding. Much research is correlational, making causal direction impossible to assess, and many other variables which cannot be controlled for are likely to influence findings. These issues of measurement have considerable implications for evaluation of research and theories, but firstly we should consider in what ways theories may inform us of a leadership-motivation link.

Theoretical Basis for a link

Steers et al., (1996) suggest ‘one of the most important impacts of organizational leadership, whether it be effective or ineffective, is on the motivation of organizational members’ (p618), but the links between leadership and motivation are often implicit. A great variety of theories of motivation exist, and a correspondingly great number of leadership theories have been developed, some we can discuss elsewhere on this forum). Theories of motivation can be classified on a continuum from proximal to distal (distance from actual behaviour), and content (dispositional/choice focus) or process (perception/volition focus). It is most likely that leadership behaviour will affect more proximal and processual aspects of motivation, making these theories more likely to inform. Motivational theories such as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs are still used to help understanding, but as little research supports the ideas these have been taken over by goal setting and exchange based theories of motivation. In terms of leadership, path-goal theory, and theories of transformation versus transactional leadership, have taken over from some of the earlier ideas. However, I will leave the theory for another day, and concentrate right now on two types of leadership – those at the top of the organization, and those in charge of teams:

a) Organizational Leaders
Much research assumes a link between CEO leadership, motivation and performance, but there is controversy over leadership impact on organizational performance. De Vries (1996) argues for links between top leaders and high performing organizations, although little robust empirical work is cited. Some suggest these outcomes are partly due to Transformational forms of Leadership, although the links are unclear, and even the more academic research has serious weaknesses. It is possible the outcomes considered are too far removed from the construct of motivation, perhaps the results will be clearer if we consider teams?

b) Team Leaders
Some evidence indicates that if a Leader is missing, member motivation may be low, implying that simply having a leader can increase motivation. Others argue that substitutes for leadership can make a leaders role unnecessary, however research indicates that leader effects are not neutralised, suggesting an emotional bond with a leader cannot be replaced (in Chemers 1997). Furthermore much of the ‘substitutes’ research replaces aspects that many would define as Management rather than Leadership.

Some suggest the presence of well-defined leaders may reduce a group’s ability to experiment, this view is supported by evidence that Charismatic leaders may deny empowerment – for some individuals this may result in de-motivation, although again, little systematic research has been carried out on this. It has also been shown that in routine reliable performance areas, charismatic leadership effects are neutralised (see Howell & Costley, 2006).

Research from a Social Exchange perspective suggests particular forms of team leadership can empower subordinates, which leads to increased satisfaction and fairness perceptions, and improved performance. There is also evidence of a significant relationship between delegation and subordinate performance and satisfaction. Deci (1990) argues that social influence strategies can attenuate intrinsic motivation; if one accepts a definition of leadership as a social influence process this suggests a positive influence for leadership. Yet there is evidence that non-contingent rewards and punishment are ineffective and may demotivate

The above evidence, although mixed, does suggest potential negative and positive effects of leadership on follower motivation, however, most of the cited research is correlational, therefore no causal direction can be proven, constructs are often ambiguous, and many studies are weakened by attributional biases. Perhaps difficulties with finding evidence are due to there being no leadership impact on motivation at all?

No Leadership Impact?

Some argue that leadership is purely an explanatory category, used after the event, due to attributional and prototype processes and a need for causal and controlling principles. It is suggested that leadership, in reality, has no direct impact. Others suggests this argument is misplaced, as it is just as likely attributions of outcomes to leadership is widespread because of direct experience of leadership effects. However, the evidence suggests leadership is often attributed after the event, (Steers et al. 1996) lending weight to constructionist arguments.

Others argue that much employee motivation is actually out of a leaders control (Shamir et. al 1996), due to the multitude of meanings that originate outside the organization, however it is acknowledged that these meanings can be influenced through the leadership function, influencing organizational culture, perhaps this is a key to motivation? The next article will consider this aspect.

References:
Chemers, M.M. (1997) An Integrative Theory of Leadership, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M., (1990) ‘A motivational approach to self: integration in personality’ in R.A. Dienstbier (ed) Perspectives on motivation, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation,
De Vries, M.K., (1996) ‘Leaders Who Make a Difference’, European Management Journal vol. 14, no. 5, p.486-493
Howell, J.P. & Costley, D.L. (2006) Understanding behaviors for effective leadership. 2nd edition. Pearson.
Porter, L.W., Bigley, G.A. & Steers, R.M. (2003) Motivation and work behaviour, 7th edition, McGraw-Hill.
Shamir, B., House, R.J. & Aarthur, M.B. (1996) ‘The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory’, in Steers, R.M., Porter, L.W., & Bigley, G.A., Motivation and Leadership at Work, 6th Edition, McGraw-Hill International.

‘Your company name’ believes in the importance of lifelong learning for all directors, staff and associates, and in the need for continued professional development (CPD). Crosslight works towards continual ‘reflexive practitioner’ processes, to enhance the learning environment for all involved in our projects.
The company will employ and contract from a pool of highly qualified, experienced and well-respected professionals who already have high levels of education (to at least Masters level with the exception of administrative staff). In particular, staff and associates are selected for their highly developed and practiced skills of written and oral communication, professional and ethical conduct, analysis and synthesis of a wide variety of information, and research and evaluation leading to sound practical advice for our clients. Professional development seeks to build on these skills to assist team members and individual researchers or consultants to apply these skills to satisfy our clients needs.
The training and development policy is as follows.
Policy
The training will be designed to enable associates and staff, where appropriate, to:

• participate in accessible and relevant training and development which is economical in the use of their time;
• experience learning methods which take account of individual learning styles;
• participate in training which takes due account of prevailing legislation;
• participate fully in training activities that will be relevant to all participants irrespective of gender, age, ethnicity or disability;
• hone and apply core skills essential for all of the company’s methods.
• What can staff and associates expect of the company?

All staff and associates can expect the company to:

• provide induction to the work of Crosslight, its mission, standards and values;
• train him/her in specialist skills needed to carry out or facilitate research or consultancy work; this includes effective use of the electronic communications system set up to support projects;
• assist him/her to develop sufficient confidence to undertake or facilitate their projects;
• hold regular reflexive practitioner meetings, coaching sessions and lead-researcher/consultant observations and follow-up reflection discussions.
• work together in teams whenever possible and have regular team meetings focusing on development of skills;
• provide training reference material to use after completion of their training;
• provide the company’s documents they need to conduct the project to which they are assigned;
• add them to Crosslight’s mailing list for receipt of relevant new publications and information about the company’s work;
• provide them with opportunities to contribute to the evaluation of the methods which they use on Crosslight projects.

Benefits for clients and other organisations include
Adherence to this policy should provide the following benefits:

• confidence that Crosslight team researchers and consultants are properly trained to undertake research and consultancy work professionally, and confidently;
• consistent application of chosen method;
• consistency in quality, ethical processes and benefit realisation.

Related documents: Quality Policy, Health & Safety Policy, Diversity Policy.

Many organizations find that change programmes, even apparently straightforward changes, fail to achieve their objectives. In many cases this is due to unclear aims, uncertain plans and a low awareness of what is required of the people involved.

Research has shown that a clear understanding of the current organizational situation, readiness for change, and the requirements for different stakeholders to enable the change, will help to increase the chances of success. An organization needs to understand the positive aspects of current attitudes, processes and behaviours that can be actively used to drive change, and the negative aspects that need to be reduced or controlled to avoid errors and reduce resistance.

Management Studies

In management research it is suggested that all components of change need to be assessed to gain a complete understanding of the level of readiness:

Management research emphasises the rational and political aspects of change, but tends to suggest that emotional responses are problematic. Much of the research is based on case-studies and tends to be descriptive, analysing change after the event and offering prescriptive solutions.

Psychological Studies

Psychological research focuses on three aspects of the individual during change, cognitive, emotional and behavioural, but also emphasises how the structure and situation within which the individual experiences change will influence their reactions. Emotions are accepted as a part of human nature, and both positive and negative aspects taken into account. Although this research also uses case studies, the concepts are backed up by tested theory and grounded in psychological experiments, enabling a much clearer view of cause and effect.

Psychological aspects of change:

Research in this area suggests that employees often view change as a signal that the organization may be reducing their side of the psychological contract, unless communication is clear they will tend to interpret any change as a potential loss. Many will experience anxiety and feel that their current schemas or mind-sets are challenged, which will increase anxiety further and lead to emotional contagion within groups. Psychological research also emphasises the importance of fairness or ‘justice’ perceptions during change, and how carrying out an assessment can be used to develop positive perceptions of ‘anticipatory justice’ to facilitate the actual change process.

Knowledge about the correct application of techniques to reduce anxiety, develop trust and commitment, adjust schemas, and help staff through processes of emotional and rational acceptance, will lead to positive behavioural outcomes. At the same time the correct use of behavioural reinforcement, goal setting, and role modelling will feed back into behavioural, emotional, and cognitive aspects.

Recent psychological research has also led to an awareness of the importance of considering both structure and agency in preparing for change. This suggests that it is important to assess and where necessary change the rules norms and roles that have developed in the organization. Consideration of organizational culture and history are important.

There is also now increasing evidence that organizational discourses (how people talk, the words they use, the stories they tell), strongly influence employees approach to change. Past experiences of change influence a persons approach to current and future changes, how groups of people talk about change can be an important part of the process. Although history is difficult to re-write, and cultural change is known to be extremely problematic, organizational discourse can be influenced over time, and analysis of this is another important tool for assessing change readiness.

Integrating management and psychological theory leads to seven key aspects of change:

A Holistic Approach

Many change consultants focus on the individual, arguing that individuals change not organizations. However, research suggests a more complex approach to change is needed, the organizational processes and structures need re-alignment to enable the individuals to change. Therefore a more holistic process is required, that takes into account the full range of likely barriers and enablers, all of which are interconnected, as highlighted above. All these aspects need to be taken into account when analysing readiness and designing each stage of the change.

Change Readiness Assessment

The readiness assessment includes analysis of the behavioural, emotional, cognitive, structural, rational and political aspects of the organization, specifically analysing the following areas:

o Values & goals
o Perceived management support
o Individual and organizational ‘self-efficacy’
o Perceptions of the history of change in your organization
o Communication flows
o Current & future measurements and rewards
o Change willingness x stakeholder
o Resources (availability, limitations)
o Processes (suitability, requirements)
o Management structures
o Administrative support processes
o Technology
o Knowledge levels
o Future-gap awareness

The methods used can be based on action research (therefore accepting that the assessment itself will generate some change, and actively using this) and grounded in the psychological and management literature, it will include:

o Focus groups to increase understanding of the above areas but also inform regarding communication processes and underlying blocks or channels for change promotion or resistance.
o Interviews with key stakeholders which will also enable assessment of private or sensitive issues.
o Survey instruments to add a quantitative element, provide access to a greater number of stakeholders, and enable some measurements for before and after the change.

As openness of communication is a key aspect of successful organizational change, it will be important to feed-back the findings to the people involved. Indeed, this feed-back activity will be an important mechanism in generating a positive approach to the change.

Readiness Assessment as part of the Change Process

Analysing the organization and the carriers and barriers for change is an important first step in any change process. Without this analysis it is difficult to assess what steps need to be taken to mobilise change. Perhaps more importantly, carrying out the assessment also enables the future change to be contemplated, discussed, and envisioned, with a potential loosening of current mind-sets, and pre-acceptance leading to increased push from all stakeholders. However, the process needs to be managed in a professional manner, making good use of psychological techniques to facilitate a positive outlook, as research suggests attitudes solidify early upon hearing of an imminent change and there is a need to secure a favourable sentiment from the very beginning.

Benefits of a Change Readiness Assessment

By carrying out a change readiness assessment an organization will enable:

o Increased likelihood of a successful change
o Clear objectives for the change
o Related measurements to enable assessment of success
o An understanding of what needs to be done to enable change, across a broad range of areas (processes, attitudes, behaviours)
o An increased understanding of the need to change for all stakeholders

Ethical Considerations

All assessments should be carried out under British Psychological Society code of conduct guidelines or similar code, by highly qualified consultants. All data should be collected, reported and stored to ensue anonymity and confidentiality. All participants will be offered the right to withdraw, and it should be stressed that participation is voluntary. As highlighted earlier, the information should be fed-back to the staff, which will also facilitate the start of the change process.

I was giving a lecture on change management the other day and the class and I were deep in discussion about involvement and ethical behaviour when one of the students asked ‘but what if we don’t have time for all this pink and fluffy stuff?’

I was a good question that needed a clear response and to some extent my answer is a little surprising coming from a confirmed pink and fluffy person like I am – my response was ‘sometimes you have to act’. When an organisation is in dire straits and on the brink of failure or when to enter a new market a new process has to be implemented then there is simply no time for long discussions to get people on board the change manager has to act and get on with it.

What this means is we have to seize the moment and implement a new system or close down a department sometimes in the teeth of stiff opposition. The ongoing discussions needed to bring people with us or the time needed to make those in the process ‘make sense’ of the situation is just not available – we must act.

But does this mean we need to be brutal or cavalier in the way we treat people? – well no – we do not have to behave in this way in order to get the message across. The key is to behave ethically and make the process transparent that needs to be gone through and explain openly how the change process will effect the persons concerned in a clear and relevant way. People respect managers who spell it out as it is without and prevarication or weasel words – ‘Say it as it is’.

What this means is, if say, a department is to be outsourced and there is a good chance that substantial people we be let go, you tell the full story. Concretely: ‘Your department is being closed and moved to the new Company – you and several of your colleagues will have to leave’. You make clear the process that is about to unfold in clear words (the person will be in shock at this time) and tell them to think over what you have said and invite them back when they have had time to think it through to discuss their feelings and concerns. Expect defence and emotion, this is normal, but respond in a clear way – do not prevaricate – stick to the line explain the process and allow the person to internalise the consequences. When giving bad news as in this case leave no room for doubt of what is occurring avoid constructs like ‘you may be selected’, ‘there’s a chance that some of you may stay’ and so on. This only raises an expectation that they will survive. In the same vein if you are asked ‘will there be job losses?’, say ‘Yes I expect many will leave’.

I know this seems hard but research has shown that when bad news is to be given out people are very resilient as long as it is clear they are not being singled out (a fair process is in place), that there is a valid reason, and the process is transparent and applied equally. What we as managers have to understand is it is our job to treat people fairly and ensure their self-esteem is protected and they are given the grounds they need to rationalise what has happened. Aggressive, perfunctory methods of change management do not work (so put away the phone no texts that people are sacked) and are a sign of management incompetence or inexperience – do it right and your people will respect you as a person who treated them fairly in difficult circumstances.

Royston

Dismissing an employee can be difficult and has to be done carefully with consideration and following the rules. One can be very cavalier and not worry about the consequences but how this task is done is important not just for the person who will be leaving but for those who remain working for you. A poorly managed dismissal can break the trust and loyalty employees have for the organisation so its not just the employee going you have to worry about. Just as any management task it needs to be done well and although an emotionally charged job a competent manager can carry out this onerous duty whilst maintaining integrity and being seen as fair. Often managers who do this do not understand their own emotional responses and respond by being abrupt and aggressive – this is to be avoided. The process must be clear and legitimate and this will ensure that procedural justice is seen to be carried out and keeps focus on the issue of poor performance not on the people concerned.

Firstly you can dismiss an employee on one of the following grounds:

Conduct – including poor work related conduct with clients as well as you and the other staff

Capability – Insufficient qualification to do the job although this must be carefully managed and you must set down clear guidelines in a draft policy how this should be done (if you are in a sales environment for example its often best to set out performance criteria right at the start and monitor against them and discuss improvement objectives for example early on)

Legality – for example losing a driving licence if driving was a substantial element in the performance of the job

Redundancy – the work for which the person was employed has dried up or has been outsourced

Other substantial reasons – which is the catch-all for anything not covered by the above but is also a minefield as it has to be grounded in some substantive issue related to the job.

You cannot dismiss and employee of whatever service duration on any grounds of discrimination real or implied. If you feel that a dismissal is necessary follow a clear procedure to avoid any possible implications of a discriminatory nature. You should be aware that if you do not follow the correct procedure then in some countries you may put yourself liable for unfair dismissal proceedings which can leave you open to large amounts of compensation which in the case of a small business can be disastrous.

First rule of a disciplinary case is document everything in writing – even if you think it is an open and shut case it is good management practice to set things down so that if necessary these notes can be referred to should the need arise.

If an employee has been with you more than 12 months the following procedure would normally apply

The Seven Step Process:

1.0 Inform the person who is underperforming that you would like to have a meeting to discuss their performance as things are not going well (for example).
2.0 Tell the person the grounds for concern up front so they have had time to prepare – no ambushes and tell them they can be accompanied by a friend or union rep – if they chose bring along a relative make sure you are also supported just in case things get heated. You must tell the employee they have the right of appeal at any stage – if possible to another senior partner or independent person.
3.0 Hold the review meeting at your offices – reserve an office and ensure that all calls are held and you are not disturbed. Go through and explain the reasons for taking the action – state clearly that this meeting is about unacceptable performance and list out the issues. Allow the person their say – there will be defence obviously listen politely but be firm in your resolve. If this is a final meeting inform the person in clear terms that they are dismissed – leave no room for misunderstanding use a form of words like ‘ I have decided to terminate your employment’.
4.0 If this is not the final meeting in most cases it is advisable to agree a review period to give the person the opportunity to improve performance. Agree this review period and state what must be achieved by that time.
5.0 Document this meeting with the grounds and issues of concern and the agreed actions and send this in a letter to the person concerned copied to the HR department.
6.0 Hold the agreed follow-up review meeting and go through what has been achieved (or not) – hold the meeting even if performance has improved to your satisfaction and set down a new period of review to show the performance improvement is maintained.
7.0 Document this meeting in detail and copy to the HR Department to place outcome on file.

Common mistakes to be avoided.

* You need the document trail just in case you do end up in an unfair dismissal process – copy the documents to your advisor.
* A clear policy covering expected conduct, rules, dismissal procedures and performance requirements are a must no matter how small the company.
* Not applying the procedures to employees with less than one year’s service – they can suggest you fired them on unlawful grounds and claim compensation (you may have to settle because the cost of fighting it could be exorbitant when lawyers are involved! ).
* Failure to invite employees to disciplinary hearings in writing or supply adequate evidence before the disciplinary hearing – they are entitled to notice of the nature of the grievance in advance and a right of appeal
* Not appreciating the statutory requirement to proceed with each stage of the procedure without undue delay under UK law.
* Failure to appreciate that an employee may have right to appeal even if it is requested verbally rather than in writing and is after a timescale set down by the employer – not hearing grievances raised after termination of employment has occurred for example (be careful of this one if a letter is received even quite some time after the employee has left)

Of course there are circumstances where the above procedure can be truncated, for example in cases of gross misconduct but overall make sure you have a transparent procedure in place and you cannot go wrong.

Dismissing an employee is a task a manager will have to do at some time in her career and although a difficult and emotional time can be managed as long as a clear process is in place. It is very tempting to be bullish and ‘fire people’ as a sign of macho management but as well as holding the organisation potentially liable is poor practice and an indication of low management competence. Besides letting people go in a nonthreatening and honorable way, enabling them to leave with dignity, and allowing them to rationalize the process is good management style and a sign of stewardship for the people who work for you.

Royston

see more of my posts on the: BizFace Forum