The C6 Change Leadership Framework
In revisiting our original research (2006), which revealed the presence of Change FatigueTM, we conducted additional research into the literature and practices around change management. We also deployed our original Change Management Framework (the “C5” framework) in two test cases. We learned from the additional research and the two test cases that we needed to add another element, conversion.
It is proposed that this updated change leadership framework, the “C6” framework, developed largely from the lessons learned from the adaptive enterprise, be deployed as a means to lead organizational change in a manner than sustains and embeds change as a natural practice of the firm’s day-to-day activities. And to make change a natural process and part of the firm’s DNA.
Leaders need to be “ambassadors for change.”
Future leaders may be humble—but they still need to be visible. From Apple’s Tim Cook to Starbucks’ Howard Schultz, top CEOs are more than simply chief decision-makers.
They’re also brand ambassadors who, having created a strong company culture, champion that culture in the world at large. And as the business world becomes more competitive, it’s these figures who will empower staff through leading by example (B-Team 2015).
The C6 framework is developed around six leadership competencies: communications, collaboration, confidence, cohesion, climate, and conversion (see Figure 9.1). The change from the C5 version to the C6 version was the addition of the “conversion” element.
Figure 9.1 C6 Change Management Framework
Communication
Leaders today must be able to create a compelling change vision, communicate it effectively to drive buy-in across and down the organization, and then lead its execution to reach the expected outcomes. The key to the success of any executive is the ability to communicate effectively. Can you imagine an effective leader who is not an effective communicator? Leading change is a communication-intensive process. It demands leaders consistently and persistently communicate using every available communication medium. When employees are on board and engaged with the change initiative, the chances of launching a successful change strategy increases by 30 percent (smarp 2021).
The leader is often the catalyst for change. A leader today must inspire and convince constituents that change is necessary, get others to buy-in, reassures, and follows the change through to embed it into the DNA of the organization. Being an effective change agent as a leader has become a critical leadership competency for 21st century leaders.
As many as 73 percent of change-affected employees report experiencing moderate to high stress levels. Those suffering from change-related stress perform 5 percent worse than the average employee (smarp 2021).
A Towers Watson study found that while 68 percent of senior managers say they understand why organizational change is happening, the number falls from there. Only 53 percent of middle managers really get the message, and only 40 percent of front-line supervisors understand the change (smarp 2021).
McKinsey & Company found that organizations where the senior leadership communicated openly throughout the organization about change progress were 8× more likely to succeed than those who did not (Kelley 2016).
You cannot overcommunicate when you are asking your organization to change. Every successful senior manager who has led a successful change management effort expresses the need for overcommunicating during a change experience and makes this statement in retrospect (Heathfield 2021a).
There are some basics here that some leaders seem to forget:
• Communicate consistently, frequently, and through multiple channels, including speaking, writing, video, training, focus groups, bulletin boards, intranets, and more about the change.
• Communicate all that is known about the changes, as quickly as the information is available. Make clear that your bias is toward instant communication, so some of the details may change at a later date. Tell people that your other choice is to hold all communication until you are positive about the decisions, goals, and progress, which is disastrous in effective change management.
• Provide significant amounts of time for people to ask questions, request clarification, and provide input. If you’ve ever been part of a scenario in which a leader presented changes to a large group via overhead transparencies and then fled, you know what bad news this is for change integration. People must feel involved in the change. Involvement creates commitment—nothing else is as significant during a change process.
• Clearly communicate the vision, mission, and objectives of the change management effort. Help people to understand how these changes will affect them personally. If you don’t help with this process, people will make up their own stories, usually more negative than the truth.
• Recognize that true communication is a conversation. It is two-way, and real discussion must result. It cannot be just a presentation.
• The change leaders or sponsors need to spend time conversing one-on-one or in small groups with the people who are expected to make the changes.
• Communicate the reasons for the changes in such a way that people understand the context, the purpose, and the need. Practitioners have called this “building a memorable, conceptual framework” and “creating a theoretical framework to underpin the change.”
• Provide answers to questions only if you know the answer. Leaders destroy their credibility when they provide incorrect information or appear to stumble or back-peddle when providing an answer. It is much better to say you don’t know and that you will try to find out.
• Communication should be proactive. If the rumor mill is already in action, the organization has waited too long to communicate (Healthfield 2021a).
The first element, communications, is of primary importance in reframing change. Leaders have learned that the effective flow of timely information serves to fuel adaptability. If employees understand the context, relationships, strategy, and tactical needs, they are better prepared to adapt to changes in the environment on a real or near real-time basis. Employees need to understand the explicit reasons for change, the expected outcomes, and the performance expectations. Improved and timely information will go a long way to increasing the employee’s capacity for change. “Sharing data and information in a transparent manner will ensure that everyone is in the loop, and that everyone is aware of any potential issues with the business, product or service that can be addressed in a collaborative manner” (Johnson 2020). Wanberg and Banas (2000) found that during change, the timely exchange of information increased employee’s openness to change. Nelson and Cooper (1995) found that during times of uncertainty (change), a “climate of secrecy” and a lack of communication leads to poor morale and job dissatisfaction (p. 65). Sharing data and information in a transparent manner will ensure that everyone is in the loop, and that everyone is aware of any potential issues with the business, product, or service that can be addressed in a collaborative manner” (Johnson 2020).
In order to use communication skills to speed up change acceptance, leaders should utilize a staged approach to the communication process: first, gain others’ attention; second, establish awareness and understanding. Leaders can then do the third: gain the advantage of persuading others (Mai and Ankerson 2003).
Dunford, Palmer, and Akin (2009) argue that leaders must use a broader array of communication skills to drive change including more listening, the creation of active, bidirectional feedback mechanisms, the use of stories, and doing more “selling.” Leaders can effectively “sell” the needed adaptations by linking the change vision to the business impacts, continuously and consistently communicating the change story and by focusing on incremental changes so the scale does not distract the workforce. They go on to say that talking in stages, talking coherently, and creating a common change language are critical to effective change communication.
One of the main tasks of a facilitator can be compared with an orchestra conductor, cuing members and “guiding the use of their instruments toward the desired result” (Cserti 2019).
Unsuccessful leaders tended to focus on the “what” behind the change. Successful leaders communicated the “what” and the “why.” Leaders who explained the purpose of the change and connected it to the organization’s values or explained the benefits created stronger buy-in and urgency for the change (The Center for Creative Leadership n.d.).
There are four stages of change communication (smarp 2021).
1. Awareness: Building internal awareness through clear, timely, and personalized change communication sent via employees’ favorite communication channels in order to eliminate or mitigate employees’ fear and resistance to change.
2. Understanding: Communicating the what, why, how, when, who as well as the WIIFM (what’s in it for me) is important to help employees understand the benefits of the change and see the positive sides of it.
3. Acceptance: In this stage, employees accept the change and act in accordance with their employer’s instructions. However, it is the employer’s job to keep employees updated, encourage their share of voice, and make them feel involved in the process.
4. Commitment: Once employees accept change, change communication is not done. Moreover, this is the stage in which most change initiatives fail. Communication needs to keep flowing, employees need to be able to collaborate, and employers need to spot and reward their change ambassadors (smarp, 2021).
Devries (2017) offers some ideas on the mistakes to avoid when communicating change.
Mistake 1: Many well-meaning managers attempt to improve change communications by going the direct route.
These managers naturally want to talk directly to employees, usually supported by the advice of senior human resources staff or consultants. Unfortunately, it is a mistake that is wrong for two reasons.
First, it can be viewed as a mere symbolic move, and today’s disillusioned employee has little love for the empty gesture. Second, and more damaging, these campaigns can weaken the relationship between workers and their team leaders. Team members want to work for someone who is connected and has a degree of power within the organization. They want to know their supervisor has some pull, and is not viewed as powerless.
Mistake 2: Other well-intentioned leaders push for equality in the workplace.
They believe leaders should sit shoulder-to-shoulder with employees to hear the big news.
Again, a mistaken strategy because it is evidence of management’s failure to recognize the team leader’s superior status. This reduces the person’s perceived power and weakens his or her effectiveness as a force of change. What many leaders fail to realize is that the only communications with the power to change behavior is the kind between a team leader and a team member.
Mistake 3: Applying the strategy that more must be better, executives in charge of change campaigns use ink by the barrel.
They think the solution is more employee reports, posters, news bulletins, video scripts, team briefing outlines, brochures, and guidebooks. This too is the wrong approach, because the critical communication is the type that happens face-to-face.
Energy and resources should be directed toward producing briefing cards that will arm leaders to answer the key questions that are in the minds of staff members.
Mistake 4: Not giving team leaders a persuasive story to tell can be a tactical error.
Storytelling helps persuade at an emotional level. Stories are the building blocks of an organization’s culture.
If there is already a true story to tell about how the change will benefit the organization and its employees, so much the better. If not, at least give people a narrative to tell about how success can be achieved in the future. Every story starts with the name of a character who wants something. Make your main character likable or the victim of undeserved misfortune so the listeners will root for them. To make the individual likable, describe some of their good qualities or attributes.
Heroes need help on their journey. They need to work with a wise person. This is where your organization comes in. Be the voice of wisdom and experience. The hero does not succeed alone; they succeed because of the help you provided.
Also give the listeners the moral of the story. Take a cue from Aesop, the man who gave us fables like The Tortoise and the Hare (the moral: slow and steady wins the race). Don’t count on the listeners to get the message. The storyteller’s final job is to tell them what the story means.
To recap this “C”—Sibbett and Wendling (2018) note the need to hear all voices and for leaders to create a consistent environment of dialogue. Dialogue is the practice of leveraging the power of the whole to receptively listen to diverse perspectives, suspend judgments, and explore assumptions. This can help transform thinking into assumptions and potentially wisdom by appreciating complexity and allowing creative tensions to forge new solutions.
They offer these “dialogic practices”:
• Working with intention
• Supporting readiness to share and explore
• Creating safety and nonjudgment
• Making group agreements
• Listening deeply
• Asking generative questions
• Normalizing ambiguity
• Facilitating pivotal conversations and reach exchange
• Holding the process open for emergence
• Avoiding premature closure
• Shifting from divergent to convergent exchange
• Tracking collective insights
It seems clear from both research and experience that timely and open communications is an essential element in reducing stress and improving job satisfaction. Gibson, O’Leary, and Weintraub (2020) stress the importance of frequent and clear communication in order to ensure that employees know their value to the organization.
Collaboration
For future business, collaboration will be a key driver to success. In an article for The Guardian, Neville Isdell and Clare Melford point out that as the world changes, “new collaborations will emerge between governments, businesses and not-for-profit organizations” (B-Team 2015).
Leaders need to be connectors adept on connecting an array of stakeholders and in creating relationships that can be leveraged to achieve the change vision of an organization. Collaborative connector behavior includes silo-busting, building trust, aligning body language, promoting diversity, sharpening soft skills, and creating psychological safety. (Goman 2017).
Kelley (2016) also noted the critical need for the “C-suite” executives leading change to connect with a “network of change agents.” He refers to the need for senior executives to connect with key influential employees across and down the organization. These are “forward thinking” individuals who can help drive change ownership as well as successful implementation of change initiatives.
Making meaningful and sustainable change requires collaboration and strong leadership. While not as evident a value to some, collaboration is essential to change efforts and results. Change cannot happen if leaders and functions within the organization operate autonomously and are siloed off. One of the first steps in change management will be a shift in the culture to a more collaborative organization, across units, across geographic boundaries, and among functions, roles, and status levels (Cross, 2021).
Valdellon (2017) offered the following benefits are realized by businesses that have a collaborative culture:
1. More flexibility as an organization, enhanced ability to manage sudden change
2. More engaged employees through teamwork and camaraderie
3. Healthier employees
4. Higher retention rates of employees
5. Enhanced ability to attract top talent
6. More productive meetings
7. Accelerated production and creation of value
8. Innovation is spurred
9. Better alignment with stakeholders, especially with clients
10. Better individual productivity
11. Increased profitability
This element, collaboration, is also very important to the concept of “adapt and survive” (Capgemini 2003, 8). The pace and complexity of the current environment exposes weak links in organizations. It is not realistic to expect organizations or employees to be able to thrive in this environment by going it alone. Change risks pulling an organization apart: trust weakens, silos or impenetrable bunkers develop as people cling onto their jobs and seek to strengthen their power bases. People can become wary, feel isolated, and uncertain; creativity and productivity can take a dive (Macaulay n.d.).
Collaboration is the act of people working together to reach a common goal. Collaboration is the way that all the people in an enterprise function together. Better collaboration means better operations. With improved collaboration, organizations can increase the scale and capacity of their processes and develop new ways of doing business (Cisco 2011).
The need for collaboration with suppliers, customers, and other stakeholders is essential for the organization to seize opportunities or to thwart threats. It is equally unrealistic to expect employees to meet the challenges they face day to day by themselves. The growth of the use of teams in organizations is evidence of the need to find ways to leverage current assets to create new responses. Collaboration is fueled at the employee level through the timely exchange of information and meaningful participation in the analysis and implementation processes. Involving employees early in the process improves engagement and broadens the scope of relevant exchanges between management and employees. Leaders have learned that involving employees in tactical discussions can improve unit performance and adaptability without undermining the chain of command. The goal of a collaborative process is to ensure a holistic perspective is developed. This will likely lead to fewer surprises and more integrated responses. Research indicates that change initiatives have a higher level of success when there is clear communication about the change initiative, an opportunity for participation in the process and a shared interest in its success (Daniels and Hollifield 2002).
Newton (2017) offered these insights to link collaboration and change.
It takes more than informing and updating other business leaders on our change-initiative developments. To drive collaborative change:
• Before looking forward, look around. Rather than putting all initial energy into planning how the initiative will be successfully achieved, first investigate what other changes are going on across the business and explore what they really mean. We need to go beyond surface understanding of others’ change initiatives and consider how we might be able to work together to unearth potentially overlooked mutual gains.
• Put your hand up to drive collaboration in practice. It’s easy to talk about collaborating across the business, but in reality, change-silos often form because nobody has clear responsibility for bringing the different change leaders of the various initiatives together. Volunteer to host regular “change hubs” where leaders driving change across the business can gather to share updates and identify overlaps, mutual challenges, and collaborative gains.
• Focus on reducing uncertainty and building trust. Certainty is one of the key components of collaborating with others. We are often reluctant to collaborate in practice because we are uncertain about the reality of others’ work. Seek to better understand colleagues’ work; in doing so, you increase your trust in their expertise, and their trust in yours.
• Carve out time for deeper conversations. Out habit and busyness, we often jump quickly from small talk to detailed agenda points in meetings. In doing so, we skip over the conversations that would help us better understand the bigger picture of our colleagues’ work. Start meetings with a couple of open questions to understand colleagues’ broader priorities, current opportunities, and challenges.
• Bring your external consultants together. As an external consultant, I’ve experienced times when the client has encouraged us to work together with other advisers brought in for their different expertise. I’ve also experienced times when I’ve been aware that other consultants are working in different but (at least to my mind) related areas of the business and we have been kept almost intentionally separate from them. Where any external advisers are brought in for projects, there are more gains than losses in bringing them together to share and drive collaboration across the business.
When change leaders across the business collaborate and coordinate, we position ourselves to bring greater clarity, lead more effectively, and drive changes more successfully. Successful change leaders aim for wholehearted engagement with the change and commitment to making it work.
To help ensure any change you lead is sustained, identify early on those people within your organization who exert influence, at whatever level they operate. These people may not always have the title manager or leader, but they will be influencers and leaders in their own way. They will be essential to get on side if you want to foster a sense of shared ownership throughout your organization. Encourage teamwork and collaboration throughout the change process.
Collaborative leadership across an organization is an essential ingredient to making change stick. To be effective, organizations must develop a network of leaders throughout their organization willing and able to demonstrate true collaboration, involvement, and teamwork (Macaulay n.d.).
Confidence
The next element, confidence, serves to build employee resiliency. Leaders must adopt an attitude of confidence in order to help manage employee stress during times of change. Wanberg and Banas (2000) found that optimism and perceived control were associated with openness to change. Jimmieson, Terry, and Callan (2004) note that the employees perceived ability to function has a moderating effect on job stress. In other words, if the employee has confidence about his/her ability to perform (self-efficacy), the debilitating effects of stress are reduced. Change-related confidence is an important buffer against workplace stressors (Wanberg and Banas 2000). An employee with a high level of self-efficacy is confident of “dealing with unexpected events, stays calm in the midst of difficulties and is able to handle whatever comes his or her way” (Tiong 2005, 30). Confidence also comes with experience. Lau, Tse, and Zhou (2002) note that people with more change experiences and more freedom to change will have a more positive outlook on about change. A positive change outlook leads to reduced stress and improved change openness.
It starts with both the organization’s and individual’s readiness for change. Smith (2015) noted that readiness is made up of:
• Employees’ collective desire for the change;
• Employees’ belief that the change is possible/not too risky; and
• The ability of existing systems within the business to accommodate the change.
Dym and Hutson (n.d.) noted several points about the role of “readiness” for change:
Readiness is derived from the Greek word, “arariskein,” which means “fitting” or “joining” or “being arranged for use.” So it is that certain kinds of interventions fit best in particular organizational climates at particular times—and not in others. A system can be entered at any point, because all of its elements are interconnected. This is the nub of it—when interactions are aligned according to both timing and fit, there is readiness.
Readiness takes many forms. Sometimes, people and organizations are in so much pain that they believe they must change. At other times, systems are so out of kilter, so uncertain or disorganized, that they can’t help but change in their efforts to regain their balance. At still other times, people are so open, curious, and receptive to the influence of a new leader that they see every new idea or program as pointing the path to successful action. There is much variety but the core principle seems clear: Organizations change when they are ready.
When ready, they will pick up almost anything from the environment and make use of it. Even the slightest nudge from a manager can act as a powerful catalyst. Conversely, when people are not ready to change, they will ignore or resist the best efforts of others to change them. As anyone who has repeatedly tried to act less defensively or more assertively knows, we resist even our own plans to change.
Leading organizational change theorists, such as Marvin Weisbord, Ronald Heifetz, and of course Kurt Lewin, recognize the importance of readiness. Each, in a different way, has advocated the location of change efforts outside the stable center of organizations and the encouragement of creative processes that thrive when people and ideas interact freely and in unfamiliar ways, before solid plans and strategies are formulated.
One of the keys to developing confidence is to increase readiness to change. This can start with recognizing what Dym and Hutsion (n.d.) called “forays.”
No matter how rigidly or bureaucratically organized systems are or may appear, there are always changes afoot—people are constantly trying to improve things. Leaders and other change agents must learn to see these forays for what they are: tentative, incomplete moves that people and organizations make to improve their organization. Their efforts are forays from one way of doing or thinking about things into another.
Forays are present in all organizations, all of the time. It is essential for leaders to learn to spot them. If we can identify and support forays to help them grow and use the momentum of people’s own energies, then we have access to the most powerful change agent possible.
Many leaders plan and implement change efforts with hardly a thought to the readiness of their employees. They may assume that persuasion and reason will win the day. Or rather than picking their moments, leaders may try to create a permanent state of readiness for change in a negative way, by declaring that “only the paranoid survive,” or in a positive way, by striving to create a “learning organization.”
An investment in training and preparation is also seen as a means to improve confidence. The idea is to build muscle memory (change memory) that allows for fast response as conditions demand. The constant focus on preparation also builds confidence in the firm’s ability to adapt. Combined with appropriate information flow, preparation expands the perspectives and confidence of the unit members. The more informed and prepared employees are, the more resilient and adaptable they become.
To build confidence, leaders need to develop the readiness to change and also to increase resilience.
One way to assess readiness to change, keeping the change vision in mind, is to create a frame using a “start, stop, continue” assessment (Kelley 2016) using these three questions:
1. What behaviors and beliefs will the individuals and the organization need to have (start)?
2. What behaviors and beliefs will the individuals and the organization need to stop?
3. What behaviors and beliefs will the individuals and the organization continue to have?
This may seem like a fairly simple assessment, but the purpose is a bit more complex assessment. Ideally, the leadership team (and other key stakeholders) use this process to focus on both the current and future state at the same time. The participants have to decide what to carry forward, what to abandon, and what new processes may be needed.
Ovans (2015) note that resilience refers to a person’s capacity to handle difficulties, demands, and high pressure without becoming stressed. This is manifested in four ways: the ability to “not sweat the small stuff.” They maintain their good cheer despite the frustrations and hassles that are part of everyday work life. The ability to perform well under pressure. Resilient people handle pressure well. The ability to respond flexibly and adapt to changing circumstances. Resilient people respond resourcefully to change. Rather than fight change and hang on to old, outdated ways, they respond to change with confidence and flexibility. The ability to bounce back from defeat and disaster. The more resilient a person is, the more quickly they are able to recover from a setback, make the best of the new situation. The more resilient a workforce, the more it can handle heavy workloads, pressures, and major changes with less stress.
Coutu (2002) said this about resilience:
Resilient people possess three characteristics—a staunch acceptance of reality; a deep belief, often buttressed by strongly held values, that life is meaningful; and an uncanny ability to improvise. You can bounce back from hardship with just one or two of these qualities, but you will only be truly resilient with all three. These three characteristics hold true for resilient organizations as well.…Resilient people and companies face reality with staunchness, make meaning of hardship instead of crying out in despair, and improvise solutions from thin air. Others do not.
Proctor (2020) added:
The real value of resilience for organizations lies in the ability to successfully implement business imperatives. Most change projects fail because the people involved are just not resilient enough to deal with the perpetual change loading—where change projects continue to be undertaken without any assessment of whether the change capacity exists to deliver them successfully in the organization.
Resilience is the quality that enables one person to bounce back, actually respond well, and thrive with multiple challenges, while a colleague, with apparently similar skills and experience, struggles to cope.
She adds that these are seven key characteristics of resilient people:
1. Optimistic: Resilient people believe that change will have a positive outlook. They are able to analyze even an apparently dire situation in a way that gives them hope for the future.
2. Self-assured: Resilient people have a strong but realistic belief in their own capabilities. As a result, they tend to control change, rather than the change controlling them.
3. Focused: Resilient people have the focus needed to be able to prioritize activities effectively. They can pursue goals successfully, even in the face of adversity.
4. Open to ideas: Resilient people have an open mind to different tactics and strategies. They tend to be good at generating alternative approaches and solutions to match the changing situation.
5. Seek support: Resilient people actively seek the support of others during times of change. They look for opportunities to involve the skills and experience of other people as well as their own.
6. Structured: Resilient people are able to analyze the situation and create an effective plan to implement change, with enough flexibility built in to cope with the shifting situation.
7. Proactive: Resilient people are prepared to step out into the “unknown” and take the action necessary to make change.
Increasing confidence is essential to creating a sustained focus on productive change. It starts by accessing and increasing change readiness and then building resilience through change experiences.
Cohesion
In today’s fast-paced, ever-changing business environment, driving deeper levels of cohesion can mean the difference between success and failure. Primarily because cooperation and unity and the related social connections can create collective confidence during change periods.
Cohesion is all about organizational identification. A high level of organizational cohesion improves morale and communication, builds resiliency, and improves adaptability. Members of the organization take pride in membership and form strong bonds with their peers. Members can identify with a shared mission, vision, and values to align their personal interests, harness their collective expertise, and focus their individual efforts.
Puusa and Tolvanen (2006) note that organization identity, when realized by organization members, has an effect on how strongly individuals within the organization identify themselves with the organization. Therefore, a strong identification results in the level of trust and in that way creates stronger commitment to the organization and its goals. Resilience refers to the ability to cope with ongoing disruptive change, bounce back easily from setbacks, overcome adversities, change to a new way of working and living when an old way is no longer possible, and do all this without acting in a dysfunctional or harmful manner. Leaders must lead in a constantly changing world. Some staff make it difficult by resisting or fighting the ongoing changes. Others adapt and flow with them. Leaders who understand the importance of workforce resiliency can help employees navigate through rough periods of change skillfully and easily (Siebert 2005).
Van Dick, Wagner, and Lemmer (2004) note that organizational identity serves to describe what organizational members think is central to the organization, what distinguishes the organization from others, and what the members perceive to be enduring about the organization. Membership in the organization and peer relationships provides an enduring sense of belonging despite the organizational changes that may have occurred. Organizational identity is positively associated with employee attitudes during times of change. A positive organizational identity is also positively correlated with job satisfaction (Van Dick, Wagner, and Lemmer 2004). Additionally, social support from leaders and colleagues has been shown to reduce stress and anxiety. Employees with positive work relationships have shown higher levels of motivation, unit loyalty, adaptability, and personal well-being (Tiong 2005).
Cohesiveness can be a positive factor while an organization is moving toward change. If you can get influential members of an organization to come together, you may also be able to get the outlying folks to come on board for reasons outlined in the aforementioned forces and actions that create and maintain cohesiveness. For example, Schultz, Sjøvold, and André (2017) noted that the nonparticipating group could still have a strong attraction to the others in the organization, they may be resistant to separating from those other members, or they may just be motivated to remain a member of the group. That connectedness and cohesiveness can drive change.
When cohesion is driven from leadership and is infused throughout the entire organization, the change management process will likely have a more successful outcome. The leader facilitates the preparation, support, and help, their employees need to make the change management process thrive. When group cohesiveness is conducted appropriately by the right leader within an organization, each element of the change management process will have a better chance for positive impact. The overall outcome will likely be enhanced for the organization as it moves through impending change.
Indeed (2021) noted that cohesion is important for a number of reasons. These reasons include:
• Better communication among team members
• A heightened ability to achieve company objectives and goals
• A decreased need to micromanage a team, freeing up time for managers
• A positive work environment
• A decreased use of resources due to a team’s effectiveness and efficiency
• Increased job satisfaction among employees who are part of a cohesive team
These attributes can serve as a positive source for driving identification, collective resilience, and readiness for change.
There are some indicators that can be used to judge the level of cohesiveness in the organization (Indeed 2021):
• Quick conflict resolution: A high level of cohesion doesn’t mean that conflict never arises. However, strong cohesion allows conflict to be resolved effectively by ensuring all members are heard and feel safe sharing their perspectives and ideas. The more cohesion the better members are at conflict resolution and avoiding major disagreements that can cause less cohesive teams to fall apart.
• A strong sense of “we”: Individuals who are part of a cohesive organization are willing to set aside their individual wants and needs to support the larger “we” of the group. This ultimately allows employees to work better together because members share a common vision and are committed to working on behalf of the organization rather than themselves.
• Personal accountability: Members of a highly cohesive organizations hold themselves accountable for the work they are responsible for. They understand that underperforming or not meeting goals affects the entire organization and are willing to remain accountable to ensure they do not contribute to a less effective team. Members are willing to be honest about their efforts and speak up when they are unable to meet deadlines.
• Organizational prioritization: Cohesive units are better able to maintain their focus on their organization’s larger objectives and are less likely to get distracted by competition or diverse points of view. Members are more likely to put the organization’s needs first and keep their own agendas at bay to reach organizational goals.
• A high level of trust: Trust is a major component of effective organization and it is a leadership priority to establish a high level of trust among organization members.
The higher level of cohesion in an organization will likely enable the organization to both embed adaptability into the DNA of the organization and also to positively navigate the vagaries which accompany many change initiatives.
Climate
The next element, climate, refers to the overall organizational environment created by managers. Organizational climate is the way people experience the work environment.
A positive, forward-facing, adaptive climate is more likely to reduce the debilitating aspects of stress related to change. Heflo (n.d.) notes “climate” is people’s perceptions and feelings about their work environment.
Many leaders confuse climate with culture, thinking the climate cannot be controlled because it is too big and engrained in the organization. Spector (2019) notes:
The terms climate and culture are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same concept. Climate is part of culture and reflects the sorts of behaviors that are encouraged and presumably engaged in within an organization. Culture is far more than encouraged behavior patterns. Culture includes artifacts (e.g., the sorts of clothes people wear), symbols (e.g., the company logo), technology (e.g., salespeople’s use of tablets to ring up sales), and values (e.g., profitability). Although these aspects of culture might support the climate, they go beyond climate, and much of organizational culture might not link to climate.
Savvy leaders know the climate can, in fact, be improved and that making necessary changes will move employees from anxiety to confidence and from isolation to connection. Building a climate that facilitates productive emotional experiences allows employees to achieve greater collaboration and performance. Climate is important because employees are likely to engage in the behaviors that are encouraged. To a great extent, climate is encouraged by the sorts of issues and problems the company deals with.
An environment of open-communications fostering the meaningful exchange of timely and appropriate information will improve decision making and adaptability. An environment that appreciates initiative, prefers to learn versus blame, and promotes organizational membership will likely increase the resiliency of its members. Managers must learn not to overcontrol and to encourage employees to expect the unexpected. Managers cannot expect to make every decision or to manage all the daily stressors that employees face. Employees must be empowered to deal with as many situations that arise as possible. Empowerment improves adaptability. Tiong (2005) found that a high level of involvement in the process of change improved employee motivation and unit loyalty. Employees must learn to be flexible and to see change as a natural part of organizational life. Strong social support must be institutionalized into the organizational environment to help improve flexibility and adaptability. Finally, managers must create an environment that supports unit cohesion by promoting esprit-de-corps so that members take pride in membership.
Spector (2019) notes that climates are built through both actions and messaging. He suggests some steps to build organizational climate:
• Climate is a strategic decision. Top management should decide what is important and what should be emphasized. Climate often means trade-offs because resources devoted to one thing are not available for another. Safety, for example, requires effort and time. Is it okay to take five minutes to put on safety equipment if that means a little less productivity?
• Policies should be clearly communicated through the organization. It is not enough to just write policies. They must be disseminated and discussed throughout the organization.
• What is encouraged should be expected of everyone. Managers need to model the sorts of behavior expected. If assemblers are expected to wear safety gear on the shop floor, managers (and even visiting executives) should too.
• Climate needs to be discussed. This discussion should occur at all levels. To build an ethical climate, for example, ethics needs to be a frequent topic of conversation at staff meetings. Ethical lapses reported in the news, even from other companies, can be a good conversation starter.
• Supervisors should take corrective action. When employees engage in behaviors that are discouraged, supervisors should take appropriate corrective action. Depending on the seriousness of the breach, this might be just a friendly discussion of the situation and how the employee might have better handled it. Such incidents can also be the topic of conversation at a staff meeting, not to embarrass individuals, but to help employees understand what is expected.
Culture is often referred to as the unique “personality” of an organization. If that is true, then organizational climate is the mood of your organization. Whereas culture is the system of values and beliefs that determine how a company’s employees and management interact, the climate is how your employees experience that culture (Chen 2019).
Glisson (2015) offers the “ARC” (availability, responsiveness, and continuity) model as a means to connect organizational climate and change. The first ARC strategy embeds five principles of effectiveness (e.g., results-oriented, mission-driven) within the organization to guide ongoing organizational innovation and service improvement efforts. The second ARC strategy promotes shared mental models (e.g., openness to change, psychological safety) among the staff to support service innovation and improvement efforts. The third ARC strategy trains teams in the use of organizational component tools (e.g., participatory decision making, the use of feedback) that are necessary to identify and address barriers to service innovation and effectiveness.
Glisson (2015) and others found five ARC principles to be particularly important in promoting successful innovation and effectiveness: (1) be mission-driven, not rule-driven where all actions and decisions contribute to improving the well-being of stakeholders; (2) be results-oriented, not process-oriented, where success is measured by how much results improves; (3) be improvement-directed, not status quo-directed by continually working to be more effective in improving the well-being of stakeholders; (4) be relationship-centered, not individual-centered by focusing on networks of relationships that affect service quality and collective results; and (5) be participation-based, not authority-based by involving key influential stakeholders early in designing change initiatives.
Change processes are represented by three ARC strategies (i.e., embedding guiding principles, developing shared mental models, and enacting organizational component tools) that are designed to improve organizational culture and climate and address organizational barriers while blending the intentions of practitioners with the organizational opportunities to achieve constructive change. This model supports the implementation of Evidence-based practices (EBPs) and other innovations by using change processes (ARC principles, mental models, and organizational tools) that affect organizational-level change mechanisms (organizational culture, climate, barriers) and individual-level change mechanisms (intentions) to influence individual behavior (e.g., innovation adoption) (Glisson 2015).
Climate may have a soft feel, but it has a measurable bottom-line impact. A positive climate improves individual engagement, enhancing performance and productivity while improving business results. A recent Gallup poll about engagement found that 11 percent of employees were engaged, 62 percent were not engaged, and 27 percent were actively disengaged. Gallup’s comparison of the climates of top versus bottom engagement quartiles demonstrated a clear link between engagement and productivity, profitability, and greater earnings per share (Walsh 2012).
Conversion
The final element, conversion, added during our test cases, refers to the ability of leaders to embed and sustain change, to convert the necessary adaptations into the natural DNA of the organization. Given the failure rates of change initiatives, as noted earlier, it is critical that leaders increase the probability that change initiatives will reach the expected outcomes, especially given the impact on precious resources. As Palmer, Dunford, and Akin (2009) note, for change to “stick” it must be “become the new normality.” Nadler called this “baked in” and Kotter “the way we do things around here” (p. 355).
Organizations often spend an enormous amount of time and energy designing and building a future state, only to underinvest in the implementation and embedding of the changes into the “systems” of the organization. Leaders must ensure that focus and resource allocation are balanced and maintained across the end-to-end processes. A change management initiative only succeeds when the change in processes and outcomes becomes embedded in the day-to-day activities of the organization.
To be sustained, we must move from seeing change as a noun as noted earlier or as an event, it must be seen as normal and not “change” with the baggage that traditionally comes with the term (e.g., emotional, political, and negative connotations). There are a series of actions the effective change leader can take to embed or convert change into sustainable processes. These include: redesigning internal systems (e.g., reward, promotion, and recognition), redesigning roles, and linking decisions and behaviors to change objectives. Beer, Eisenstat, and Spector (1993) argue that the most behavior and attitudes are influenced by the context of roles, relationships, routines, and responsibilities (cited in Palmer, Dunford, and Akin, 2009, 360). Leaders should not expect change to be embedded by a conversion experience that focuses on attitude and beliefs, to be fully converted we must change the employee’s day-to-day experiences.
As Morgan (2016) noted “When organizations ask me how long it takes to change or how long before they can really adapt to the future of work, my response is always ‘right away and forever.’”
Quay Consulting (n.d.) listed these steps to engage staff and embed change in the organization’s processes:
1. It starts from the top with strong and effective sponsorship from senior leaders.
2. Get the right people in the right places to ensure appropriate and fit-for-purpose resourcing.
3. Engage the business with “what’s in it for me” through clear articulation and communication on the benefits for individuals, teams, and the organization.
4. Get engagement/buy-in from individuals, teams, and the organization by listening to and supporting the business concerns from all stakeholders across the business.
5. “Show, don’t just tell”: Excellent communication in all its forms (actions, behavior, spoken, written, group, and individual) need to demonstrate how change will benefit the business.
6. Be aligned: strong alignment between project managers and change managers is essential to ensure they are rowing the same boat.
7. Facilitate action and feedback by hearing concerns, taking action, and soliciting continual feedback.
We have to highlight again the critical role of the change vision to this conversion element. The change vision gives the organization a picture of what the future will look like after the change is embedded in the ways of working in the organization. It tells organizational stakeholders why they should let go of the past, sacrifice, and follow senior leadership into the future. If done correctly, the change vision creates an appealing picture of the future that provides guidance for organizational decision making and behaviors.
Kotter (2011) noted the differences between an organizational vision and the change vision.
If you are part of an organization that is trying to drive a large change, whether that’s implementing a new IT system or moving to a new go-to-market strategy, you need to have a change vision. This is a picture for people of what the organization will look like after they have made significant changes, and it also shows them the opportunities they can take advantage of once they do that.
A change vision is not the same thing as a corporate vision. Both are important, but anyone who wants to successfully make a large-scale change in their organization needs to understand how they’re different.
Every successful large-scale change that I have seen has, as a part of it, a change vision. And what that means is a picture of after we have made the changes on whatever dimensions, this is what we’re going to look like. And if we look like that we’re going to be able to exploit, grab, take advantage of some big opportunities over here that are a function of changes that are happening in this increasingly fast-moving world.
A generic corporate vision is where you think you need to look like out there on some fundamental dimensions to make you prosper. It’s not about one specific large-scale change, it’s about the future. And often, not always, that picture is about timeless values or principles, timeless behavior that makes organizations succeed. Increasingly, for example, one dimension of that timeless behavior is the embracing of change itself.
Another critical leadership action is the consistent and persistent alignment with the change vision by the leaders themselves. They must live the vision every day consistently and communicate the change vision consistently as well. Change words and change actions must match. If any inconsistency seeps in, confusion will also seep in and this will lead to indecision, inaction, inertia, and potentially a loss of credibility, all of which will undermine the change vision. Leaders have to demonstrate an unwavering commitment to the change vision but with a dose of flexibility as mentioned earlier on the importance of adaptability (Kelley 2016).
It is important to conversion that the change initiative be seen as working. There is always some doubt initially, especially given the high failure rates. Using appropriate metrics to track progress can serve several important functions. It can create positive momentum, it can offer “proof” to the naysayers or doubters that the initiative may indeed work, it can serve as an early warning system that something is off track and allow for proactive intervention, and finally, it can fuel interim opportunities for recognition and celebration, which will add to the momentum.
It is also critical to conversion that employees up and down the organization “own” the change. This means they must “buy-in” to the change vision and also feel some responsibility for the expected outcomes. This can be accomplished in several ways including early and meaningful participation in the development of the change vision. A meaningful level of responsibility and accountability for the change initiative’s success is also critical, giving the employees a “voice” in the actual implementation plan.
The C6 framework is not intended to dictate a specific approach to change leadership. It is meant to use lessons from the adaptive enterprise to promote the creation of an organizational environment that will foster adaptability as a means to reduce the negative impact of serial or ill-defined changes. The “C6” change management framework has been offered as a means for leaders to create firm-specific change leadership approaches enabled with practices related to the 6 “Cs.” The specific purpose of the framework is to infuse adaptability into the organizational DNA. Leaders will need to adapt and tailor this framework to the situation they face and the organization’s culture, assets, and competencies.
The prior version of the C6 framework (C5) has been deployed in two cases. The two cases, although limited in duration, demonstrated the framework has value in practice. The feedback from the participants in the process was very positive, and the tangible measures used to evaluate the change initiatives were all above expectations. For example, in one of the cases at eight months, the CEO noted, “A much smoother acquisition than expected; no negative financial impact, employee surveys are up and customer ‘promoter’ scores are better than expected.” The representative from the parent company said, “By previous acquisition experiences—this acquisition has had a more significant positive impact.”
The model was developed and deployed in two cases in 2008 and again in 2015: in a small software firm (70 people) facing a turnaround led by a new CEO as well as a medium-sized firm (1,100 employees) following an acquisition. The results suggest the model may have applicability as a means to lead change and to mitigate the related stressors. Because of confidentiality constraints, we can only offer an overview of the case results, without citations.
In the first case, a new CEO was brought in after two failed turnaround initiatives by the primary investor. He decided to deploy the C5 model to launch a new series of change initiatives with the goals of meeting financial expectations and to improve employee engagement. He devoted considerable personal time over a five-month period in leading the model. He deployed tactics and initiatives in each of the “C” elements.
For Communication he convened a meeting of key influencers and held a pre-announcement workshop. He then had a kickoff meeting with the entire staff, followed up with weekly updates (email) and every other Friday live updates. The CFO issued financial updates each week (“Friday Scorecards”) and whiteboards were documented with updates. Finally, the CEO spent a lot of time amongst employees creating dialogue on the changes.
In terms of Confidence, the CEO and his leadership team continually stressed that the changes would work and used what Kotter (1996) calls “small wins” to build momentum. They highlighted progress using specific examples and the use of milestones. For Cohesion, they ran a series of team building events as well as appointed employee leaders for specific projects ensuring the “voice of the employee,” as the CEO called it, was a prominent element in the change process.
In terms of Collaboration, employee-led work teams were established for process analysis and improvements and an Employee Council was set up to meet with the CEO monthly, as examples. Finally, in terms of Climate, as stated earlier, small wins were publicly shared and celebrated, expectations were realistic but confidently expressed, rewards were given for specific contributions and missteps were shared without the assignment of blame.
At 6 months, the financial targets had been met, the organizational environment changed for the better and employee retention was better than the prior experience. From the CEO, “The results were better than expected in terms of cohesion, cooperation and attitude. Not sure it helped as much as it could in tangible results in such a short period but the effect overall was certainly positive.”
Employee comments included:
“It felt like we were it in together all the way. He (CEO) made us part of it.”
“We did a lot in a short period. I wasn’t sure we could do it but we did.”
“I had information I did not have with the other CEO, it was worse than I thought, but at least I knew.”
In the other case, an 1,100-person firm recently acquired by a Fortune 20 company. The acquiring company decided to use the model to ensure a “smooth transition.” The model was deployed for an eight-month period in late 2014 and early 2015. In this case, the CEO of the acquired company led the C5 process along with members of the senior executive team and an executive from the acquirer. In this case, the process started with an extensive review of the performance to date of the company using an array of financial, operational, and human capital (e.g., retention rates) metrics. They also used industry benchmarks to calibrate the metrics as well as employee surveys and customer “promoter” score (an internally developed customer survey process). From this, they developed an “expectations scorecard” and a definition of “success” (both of which have been kept confidential).
For the Communications element, they deployed similar activities as the smaller company (e.g., weekly “integration” updates, white board announcements) but added in a few unique items as well (extensive use of an Intranet site, “Ask the CEO” anonymous site, monthly Town Hall meetings and a CEO monthly podcast). Other leaders also held similar communication events at the functional levels. For the Confidence element, they also used milestone progress as a means to celebrate “small wins,” as well as extensive publication of the “expectations scorecard” with weekly updates using a “stop light” format (green for on-target, yellow for slightly off target and red for areas needing attention).
In terms of Collaboration, they formed a “Steering Committee” of selected managers and key employees from up, down and across the organization as well as three representatives from the new parent company. They formed an “Integration” team as well as 13 sub-teams of managers and employees to work on various integration elements (e.g., a team on “systems,” another on “employee transition”). They also set up three “Employee Councils,” on each on their three main sites. These employee councils met with the CEO or a senior executive monthly.
For Cohesion, they used the various integration teams, some smaller sub-cross functional teams and a mentoring (“buddy”) process to link up managers and employees from the acquired company and the acquirer. Finally, in terms of Climate, they used recognition, an extensive feedback process (tracking of suggestions), an unambiguous presentation of expectations and a series of “celebration” events around milestone accomplishment.
At eight months, the CEO noted, “A much smoother acquisition than expected; no negative financial impact, employee surveys are up and customer “promoter” scores are better than expected.” The representative from the parent company said, “By previous acquisition experiences—this acquisition has had a more significant positive impact.”
Employee comments included:
“We have a lot of adapting to do but so far it has been fine and if I am honest, better than I expected.”
“They are a much bigger company and as a result things take longer but they seem to be willing to adapt to our practices when they are better.”
“They have the assets we needed and are willing to invest in us which is what we needed. They treat us as adults and we have influenced the priorities. I appreciate the “no-BS” approach to information—we are not excluded.”
Tangibly, at eight months, the acquisition was ahead of the expectations scorecard on eight of the nine measures, retention was better than expected (only one of the 13 member management team of the acquired company had left) and “stress indicators” (from employee surveys) were within preacquisition range.
Given the persistent conditions noted in our earlier “Speed of Now” section, there is no indication that change is going to slow down anytime soon, or that systemic impatience will dissipate. Therefore, we believe our C6 Change Leadership Framework can be successfully deployed by leaders to embed adaptability into the natural DNA of the organization.