How do transformational leaders change agents?

Leaders play a crucial role in steering organizational change and inspire or stimulate people for achieving excellence at work by realizing the pre-defined goals. Effective leadership provide a direction and vision to the people from top to bottom, develops a conducive culture, climate and values for enabling certain expected code of conduct or behaviour out of employees.

Leaders conceptualize and administer suitable strategies for driving continuous improvement in the existing processes, motivating employees for superior performance and facilitating change across various functionalities.

Leaders play both transactional as well as transformational roles depending upon the organizational context, environmental factors and the long term objectives.

Transactional Leadership

Transactional Leaders work in accordance with the predefined modes of operation and are more concerned about ensuring a continuity in the day to day functioning, ensuring seamless operations by establishing systems and processes in place and focused towards achievement of set targets.

Such leaders can enforce disciplinarian actions, establish a systemic framework and define a road map of action, formulate & implement policies and motivate superior performance through a systems of rewards and incentives.

A Transactional Leader is not concerned about the futuristic vision or strategies for acquiring market leadership, but is more concerned about ensuring that the tasks assigned are completed on priority by meeting the quality benchmarks.

Transformational Leadership

It would be more appropriate to say that the Transformational Leaders are the real champions of change. They are the visionaries who influence or motivate teams for achieving excellence in business performance.

Transformational leaders give more importance to the development of cohesive teams and facilitate an environment of collaboration for achieving the next best level of performance, instead of ensuring the completion of day to day organizational duties/tasks.

The focus is more on team building, empowerment of employees, alignment of individual-organizational goals and culture building for motivating individuals to embrace the change for the better.

Given below are the key functions performed by the Transformational Leaders:

Transformational Leadership: Advantages and Disadvantages at Work

Advantages:

Disadvantages:

Examples of Best Practices of Transformational Leaders in Business

Transformation in Technology: Various Technology giants like Apple, Microsoft, Intel, IBM and many others, revolutionized the computing world through technological innovation by introducing state of the art quality software applications and microprocessors. Even the world of internet has witnessed a change in the contemporary scenario with Google enjoying its leadership as the most effective search engine and Amazon & e-Bay leading the e-commerce platform.

Transformation in Financial Services Industry: Due to the internet revolution, the financial services industry is undergoing a sea change with the availability of online platforms for the investors for planning their investments independently, researching, trading stocks and investing in various financial products by being in any part of the world.

Pioneers like Peter Lynch, proponent of Mutual Funds and John Bogle, proponent of Index Funds, changes the attitude and preference of the investors on various financial portfolios. Today, Mutual Funds and Index Funds have become the most preferred choices for the investors because of the low costs involved and diversified benefits.

Diversification: In the era of globalization and liberalization, the organizations follow diversification strategy for business expansion across the globe and maintaining a leadership edge in the competitive market. Leaders like Jack Welch, the CEO of General Electric during 1980s, restructured the entire organization from the traditional bureaucratic set up to a more agile and lean framework.

Other Examples include Business Process Outsourcing and Knowledge Process Outsourcing which has resulted in generation of cost advantages for the organizations and enhanced business efficiencies, increased job opportunities for millions of people across the world and revolutionized organizational functioning as a whole. Again quality tools and processes like TQM, Kaizen, Six Sigma, etc have led to continuous improvement in business operations and achievement of superior quality benchmarks in manufacturing practices.

Related Articles

View All Articles

Author: Edwin van der Stam

Why do change agents hardly ever survive the second phase of change?

“Change is a slow process, but by quitting… you won’t speed it up”

Why do change agents rarely “reap what they sow”. Why are they generally not surviving the next phase of change and seldom end up in the “steady (end-)state”? Is it that their “sell by date” is largely influenced by the company’s leadership, who despite knowing that they need these change agents, still feel challenged by the influence these change agents have on the organisation or their own position? Or is it because of the resistance, that builds up in the middle management layers of an organisation, where usually the more practical day-to-day power and knowledge resides and who fiercely defend their acquired rights and positions? Or is it perhaps the change agent’s own character and behaviour, that makes them vulnerable to “behind the scenes politics”, unsubstantiated criticism, blame and (orchestrated) opposition…..

In practice, it has been acknowledged that in so many instances, change agents are the organization’s “saving grace”. They usually play a crucial role in getting the organisation on the change track and moving it forward. So that begs the question, why consequently they hardly ever survive, the very change that they (helped to) make happen?

The dilemma of change agent dynamics in a nutshell

When organisational change and transformation are deemed necessary, change agents are the first one’s that leadership turns to. First of all, these are the kind of people that are easily visible in an organisation, as they tend to portray a better than average understanding of market trends and dynamics. Also they appear to be more pro-active in communicating this understanding and seem better skilled in articulating its possible impact. They usually also bring vision, a sense of direction and new or uncommon insights and ideas, where others tend to remain more conventional in their thoughts and express a desire to continue down known pathways.

Yet funny enough, these change agents are usually also the first ones, leadership and parts of the organisation fall “out of love” with, once they believe collectively, that they’ve “understood and seen the way ahead”. That is usually the turning point, where leadership decides to “regain control” and starts finding ways to incorporate the change into the “management agenda” again. The message is generally such, that the organisation can return to the “new normal” and “turn the page” on the transformation. By doing so, the leadership usually wants to send a signal to the organisation, that a new chapter has begun and that it is necessary to move to “business as usual” again, albeit in the “revised setting”.

When all of this is done with prior intend and for a finite period of time, in terms of… putting tension on the “system”, design the change, and “ring the bell” at the end, this is of course an acceptable approach. Especially when there is full clarity on all sides, amongst leadership, the change agent and sometimes also the wider organisation. In practice however, regardless whether the change agents are picked from within the own organisation or brought in from the outside, they hardly ever see the change through to the targeted end.

In most cases, the change achieved at the point where management is regaining control over the transformation program, is often at best largely structure, systems and controls (KPIs) related, and to a much lesser extend people, behaviour and process related. Most changes fail in practice, because they do not (sufficiently) cover the full scope of the change across all elements of the operating model (organisation & structure, people & culture, KPI’s & Controls, processes and systems).

So is Change a bad investment?

Over the past 30 years, we have been battered with numbers related to change and business transformation…

• over 70% of all transformation programs fail,
• in 57% of the cases, the change leads to lower productivity (short term or longer lasting),
• in 41% of the cases, companies face a decline in people’s moral (short term or longer lasting),
• 34% of all integration programs (M&A related) do not deliver the projected outcomes,
• for every 100 programmes that start, there are 94 restarts,
• one-third of change programmes experience cost overruns of 150%-200%, and the average time overrun is 250%….,
• and of course last but not least… over 30% of transformational programmes are cancelled before they ever complete.

All of these are very sobering statistics and based on these, the answer to the question “is change a bad investment”…may be without further consideration “yes”. The strange thing is, that by now “we should know reasonably well, why transformations fail”. Not just as a result of numerous case studies, but also because it is a prominent topic in the curriculum of all business schools and institutes.

We subsequently also know, how to prevent change from failing, but in practice we still see far too often that organisations are fairly unsuccessful in “substantially moving the needles” and make change success rates and predictability go up..”. Is it that the change agents are largely to blame for this and therefore relentlessly have to take the fall at some point? And to what extend, do the circumstances determine the role a change agent should play in getting higher change success rates?

What sort of change is the organisation looking for?

Let’s look at the circumstances first. The type and level of change an organisation needs, is very much dependent on market dynamics and state of the business it is in. When operating under favourable market circumstances (like growth, strong customer base, products and services that reflect their differentiating and competitive advantage in healthy margins, a clear horizon with only minor impact such regulatory, technological, competitive etc), transformational change generally tends to be much more evolutionary, as there is usually sufficient time and money.

However when organisations find themselves operating in less favourable market conditions, with their business increasingly moving to an at risk, stressed and eventually potentially severely distressed performance situation with all the associated pressures from stakeholders, the attitude towards transformational change is inevitably more revolutionary.

On the other hand, when innovations are concerned and conventional thinking as well as doing is challenged, the change that transforms an industry, company and/or business tends to be equally more revolutionary than evolutionary oriented. With companies like Apple, Tesla, Facebook, but also services innovations like Bitcoin, Netflix etc, these are all examples of a more revolutionary change in everyone’s mind.

When a change needs to be more revolutionary rather than evolutionary oriented, chances are that the current skills set available in the majority of leaders, middle management layers and even on the “shop floor”, is usually insufficient in making this happen. It is under those circumstances, that by default a smaller group of people, who have what it takes to initiate and drive such a transformational change program are called upon to lead the way (which goes well beyond applying just the principles of PRINCE).

How does the type and level of change affect leaders of change?

So depending on the type, level, complexity and timing of the transformational change, the skillset and capabilities, what an organisation should be looking for in their change agents, needs to vary accordingly. Some of the skill sets and capabilities are fairly generic, regardless the type of change that is required.

All change agents should be able to a large extend to inspire the organisation’s employees and act as role models for the sort of behaviour needed to encourage and embed change. They should be independent (preferably not associated with the decisions of the past) and have experience with similar turbulent business environments in their earlier careers. Conditional is at all times that, they enjoy support from the Board, the CEO, and (most of) the company’s top management. Ideally, they should behave like an extension of the CEO or preferably even the wider Board and as such, be able to hold respective top and middle management accountable.

For any type of change, they should accept nothing without the necessary facts and their independent analysis. A good change agent is not only a good problem solver and business leader, but also has a high emotional quotient, has strong interpersonal skills and can be persuasive in all dialogues at all levels in the organisation. A good change agent ignites passion and leverages the efforts of a range of individual talents from the organisation, whilst ensuring also that individuals are recognised and rewarded for (out)performance.

However depending on whether the change is more revolutionary than evolutionary, the change agent needs to be(come) more directive and directional. In these circumstances, there is even more focus on their ability to strike the right balance between “carrot and stick”, between “short-term improvement and long-term value”, and between “making sure line managers themselves take responsibility for the change” and “personally ensuring that these managers deliver results quickly and with suitably high ambition”.

When the change is more evolutionary, they can position themselves as more of a high-level orchestrator in making sure “the job is/gets done”, especially when dealing with complexity that involves large numbers of discrete initiatives. As the face of the transformation, they must be able to set the tone, spur enthusiasm, and challenge constructively the current wisdom. They carry the torch to make the organization fitter, such that it can sustain the change effort over the longer term.

As type, level, complexity and timing of the transformational change, raise the bar accordingly in skillset and capabilities required, it is crucial that change agents have a strong cross-functional “multi-hat” background (as opposed to being an expert in one area). They should have seen a variety of different business situations and challenges throughout their careers. Of critical importance is that, they ask the right questions, lead by example, spot business trends early and seek understanding of its potential consequences through new thinking and relentless/resilient conversations with many different “schools of thought” and available (re)sources in the organisation.

With all the above in mind, in practice it is not easy to find change agents, that “tick most of these relevant boxes, let alone all”. Also we see that in practice insufficient effort is made in doing so. Why is that? Much of it is down to the organisation’s own senior management, not (sufficiently) recognising these requirements mentioned above, as needed in the organisation’s transformation. One of the reasons for that comes down to what is considered “good leadership or good management”. Good leadership creates a “North star” future vision and new realities, and good management is the one, who usually makes sure that the organisation stays on track to fulfil that vision and get to the new reality. They jointly ideally make sure, that they find, select and groom the change agents that “ticks most, if not all, of the above mentioned boxes”. And when they have, they create a playing field for these change agents to operate in successfully. The good leaders and managers protect their change agents from the “politics and the middle management quicksand”. They remove (pro-)actively the “roadblocks and barriers” change agents face on a daily basis (…”no that won’t work, yes we have tried that before or you don’t understand the business …..etc). And…they create clarity on what the next (internal/external) step would be for that change agent, once the transformation has run its course.

However on the flipside, “bad leadership and management”, make their choice for a change agent differently. They look more at “who is available, who is less of a threat, who do we need to find a job for, or who do we need to protect…”. Even in those circumstances where they were dealt a lucky hand in having the right change agent at their disposal, the right utilisation of such a resource often remains a struggle. They usually send their change agents into the “organisational battlefield” unprotected and exposed to all kinds of resistance, they beforehand are frequently only moderately aware of or simply choose to ignore. In these circumstances, the change agents are tasked to do the “dirty work”, without any kind of “cover”. They are being sent into the organisation to fight all kinds of opinions and interests in numerous conversations, mainly aimed to cause delay and confusion, watering down the intended objectives, serve self protection and disguise uncertainty.

These kind of leaders and management usually unintentionally tend to set up change agents for failure. Sometimes also “deliberately”, so that if things go wrong they can move the blame away from themselves. But in many cases they underestimate the complexity and challenges of the change, due a lack of experience or willingness to take the time to sufficiently understand. Rarely they seek the right level of advice, in what it takes to “set their change agents up for success” and make the change happen. This way it is mainly down to the experience, skill and capability level of the change agent, how successful he or she can be and whether he or she can survive these adverse circumstances long enough, to successfully reach the end state goals.

Change agents, a different breed? 

The profile of a change agent is usually not mainstream in any organisation. There is the analogy with sports, where you have only a few exceptional football players. Of course, like all the other members of the team, they too need to understand their role and task on the pitch. But they have something extra, besides their above average skillset, in their ability to read the game. They know when to deviate and can do (unforeseen) things, that “normal” players don’t see or can do, and because of that special skill set, they are also allowed to deviate. These are the players you don’t overload with instructions, as they intuitively know what needs to be done, when circumstances require them to do so. “As little interference as possible and as much as necessary”, is the motto for making the right change agent successful in their task at hand.

The key prerogative for any change is, that you need to put “constructive tension on the system”, as otherwise little progress can be made with “defrosting the steady state of an organisation”. That requires a “fearless mentality” of both leadership and change agent, as one needs to drive change and improvements into a “steady state organisational environment”, where people interests, opinions and positions are well established. In these situations, any change is seldom welcomed with open arms, but mostly by “fear of the change that is daunting”. A change agent possessing fearlessness and drive, to overcome this resistance and counter-productive ways of working, is crucial, as they remain usually exposed and vulnerable throughout the transformation, especially in the early stages.

As Steve Jobs once said, “the ones that are crazy enough to think that they can do it (change), are often the ones that do”. The best change agents possess the drive to lead and mobilise others in the organisation to follow. They can articulate, what it takes to get there and what the “rewards” are waiting at the end of the change for the ones, that follow and/or contribute. Blurry as these “rewards” still may be at the start of the journey. Change agents are prepared to put their reputation and credibility, often relentlessly on the line, and with that, also their job security or engagement (when externally hired).

Change agents are the kind of people that step up to the plate (voluntarily or asked), when the organisation requires the change. Most of the change work is nasty, tedious and usually associated with negativism, especially when as a result of the change, the “better people” need to leave the company. All of these “bad perceptions”, change agents will struggle to shake off with the larger organisation, throughout the transformation. Seasoned change agents have grown a “thick skin” for all of these sentiments (and less experienced ones should quickly grow into that “thick skin”). They should be the ones that are “comfortable” with discomfort, resistance and being associated as the “bearers of bad news and measures”.

All of this begs the question, why would someone in his/her right mind, even consider taking up a role of change agent?…is there something wrong with them? Or was Steve Jobs right after all…in that you have to be crazy to be willing to step into the role of change agent?……Knowing that in the end, the chances are more likely that you will be outlived by the very people, that you were helping “to charter into safer waters”.

Are change agents themselves sufficiently avoiding the cliffs?

Clearly any organisation that reaches the state of needing to change, evolutionary or revolutionary, inevitably gets quickly into a stage of sensitivity and fearfulness. Although leadership well understands, this is a serious matter which needs to be carefully managed, rarely in practice this is done adequately and diligently. Managing organisational anxiety is not just about (frequent) communication and reassurance, but apart from these more instrumental elements of change management, it also requires a strong focus on interpersonal skills (like patience, engagement, understanding etc). These are also characteristics, a change agents should carry in their “imaginative skills toolkit”.

There are many skills, a change agent should possess in order to be successful. Crucial ones are:

• being able to understand what drives the organisation, what are the things that are (not) working and why (not),
• being able to explain why the change is necessary (preferably in a visionary manner) and how we are planning to get there,
• being able to listen and comprehend what people’s concerns are and how they can/need to be supported throughout the change,
• being able to build trust and confidence and remove fear for the unknown,
• being able to mobilise people, preferably without pulling rank and create the momentum for people to purposely and willingly move forward, increasingly by themselves (with encouragement where required).

Where change agents become less effective, is when:

• their behaviour gets out of sync with the reality of an organisation refusing to let go,
• they are trying to “reach for the stars too soon” without having built up sufficient understanding first,
• they become dogmatic/religious about the(ir) vision and overstretch/misuse their mandate.

A change agent with a too prominent and overconfident ego, will not win the “heart and minds” of the people in the organisation. Especially when the organisation senses, that they are too much focussed on securing their own future, personal interest and/or their own “next step”.

Effectiveness of a change agent is also about, being skilled enough the pull the right levers, at the right time, knowing who to listen to and who not. Not being skilled and/or experienced enough for the job at hand, immediately gets noticed, when too many things remain at a too high conceptual level or when the change agent is focussed too much on detailing out every single step to disguise their own (or management’s) insecurity and/or inexperience.

An important skill for a change agent is also being able to make the right connect with people at various levels in the organisation and being seen themselves to actively “walk the talk and by stepping into the new”. Failing to sufficiently and regularly reflect on where their true skills are and how to make most effective use of these skills, will increase the risk of alienating the people in the wider organisation, loose valuable friends, allies and goodwill.

When you consider all these skills, it is evident that change agents are best recruited from the top executive levels in an organisation or, when required, from the outside (having been exposed to similar complexities and situations before). As it is at these levels, where such skills can be learned and sharpened. Still that is no panacea for success. Many senior executives or up and coming top talent, have failed to deliver in important change and transformation programs. More often than not, this was not as a result of their lack of skills.

The position of change agent is often appealing to highly ambitious and skilled people, as it offers the opportunity to operate in “the centre of gravity”, where one can make a difference. When the transformational change process is launched, soon everything evolves around that and whoever is leading the change, is the one that has the organisation’s full attention. The people in the organisation immediately sense, that the power balance has shifted towards the ones that are leading the organisation “into the new”. Change agents, by their sheer profile are highly driven to make a difference and tend to enjoy their spot in the limelight of change (with associated status).

Yet it is that very limelight, that at the same time gets a change agent exposed to the “deeper forces” in the organisation, that are determined to protect and defend acquired rights, habits, loyalties and positions, for as long as the reality of a better future for them is not clear. As a result, the “gaming season” opens and change agents need to constantly be on their guard for “movements and attacks from the bushes and trenches”

Anyone who has been in senior leadership or executive positions, knows that “attacks to challenge one’s position” from peers and other levels in the organisation are relentless. In some cases, you see it coming well ahead of time, but all too often one could remain rather unaware of an approaching threat, until the damage is already done. These attacks come in many ways and waves, some directly and openly, but many times in a veiled manner and from below the surface. Most of the time, these are a mix of personal attacks and those aimed at the broader change agenda (choosing their “victims” in items, that have least matured in terms of thinking and shaping).

A protective shield for change agents

Since innovation and change by default disrupt stability and spread fear, resistance to change is understandable, despite it causing unhealthy and counterproductive organizational behaviours. When putting yourself (or being put) as change agent in “harm’s way”, it is of vital importance that leadership also considers the conditions, that need to be put in place to reduce your inevitable vulnerability. Without that, the change agent becomes a rother less ship in the middle of a storm, pushed from wave to wave, as playball of the sea and wind it is surrounded by.

Effectiveness of a change agents is determined by both the sensitivity for the environment he or she needs to operate in, as well as a deep and honest understanding of his or her inner skills, capabilities, but also shortcomings.

Both leadership, who appoints the change agent, and the change agents themselves, need to be fully aware and aligned on these external and internal perspectives. As these, make change either succeed or fail. It should be a joint effort, to come up with the right conditions for success, identify roadblocks early and draft measures to remove any barriers, if and when they happen. When the profiling has been done meticulously prior to the change starting and the right change agent has been appointed for the job accordingly, then unconditional support from leadership to the change agent in facing the “greater organisation and its stakeholders”, should not just be a promise, but also become an unwavering commitment. This does not mean that critical debates between leadership and the change agent(s) cannot take place anymore. On the contrary they remain a must, but they should at all times remain indoors, so that the wider organisation never gets wind of any disagreements (as and when they arise).

So is it enough, to just focus on both these external and internal perspectives? Not quite. Not all events can be foreseen, planned and scripted with a response. Anyone, who has been through the waves of large and complex transformational change programs (but also smaller ones can have complexity), knows that the element of the “unknown and unforeseen”, requires at numerous occasions resourcefulness, intuition and improvisation. These are not just skills a change agent needs to have readily available, but also leadership in general. Circumstances change and plans needs to be adjusted accordingly. I emphasise here deliberately “adjusted”, as in practice in many cases plans are easily “abandoned”, when faced with circumstances that are not foreseen. Especially, when the organisation is already nervous about the change (or even tired of the change after the program has run for a while), leadership starts more often than not with wavering, compromising, manoeuvring away from the plan, when these circumstances are used by “the resistance and its critics” of the change. In those circumstances, it takes courage and determination of leadership to “stick to the plan”, even when forces are building up against it.

Planning and execution go hand-in-hand and should both be a “dynamic unity”. It has been described in management literature before as “moving back and forth from the balcony to the dancefloor”. Plan with overview, vision, values and goals, but also take action, evaluate what works and why, and subsequently adapt.

No matter how compelling the vision is and the plan well thought through….and even the execution is near to flawless, still in any change process one will be faced with opposition and resistance. It is important, that both leadership and the change agent realise, that they should not fight this battle on their own, but have also “the converted” fight alongside them and provide them with “aircover like” support. Even though, we know conflict is an evitable and necessary evil to get to the end-state goals, many people in leadership feel uncomfortable with it. Leadership generally grows increasingly uncomfortable with conflict, the longer the change process carries on. Loyalty to key members in the organisation often creates this “inner tension” and feeds the growing desire to remove the source of this conflict. In this case, the change program and its associated representatives.

But constructive conflict, when well-managed, has proven to have a necessary cleansing effect on the organisation. It will serve to break “barriers to the new” down and open up the way to move forwards toward the end-state goals, with activities that really matter. Nobody likes change, despite what they say, as change requires one to adapt and do things differently from what one has been accustomed to. Leadership should resist under all circumstances, their inclination to remove this discomfort and not give in to pressures from those, who do not operate with a genuine interest (beyond that of their own), towards the end-state vision/goal.

Sacrifice versus survival

One of the key questions is, whether a change agent should be retained for the organisation and not be “moved aside”, when the change is fully in motion and can be handed over to the retained and renewed organisation? Provided it is for the right reasons and timed with care, the change agent making way for leadership to fully step in again, can send a powerful signal to the organisation. Stepping into “the new” usually requires also “new leadership”. The leadership who initiated and/or managed the change, usually survives when they are charismatic and trusted enough, as well as producing the results. But also when leadership is not undisputed and unchallenged, they can survive their change, by means of making the change agent, their “fall guy”…

In those situations, when you’ve decided to put “constructive tension on the system” and know your “success rate statistics”, survival of the very change you’ve initiated, almost without exception leads to putting in place, a very skilled person(s) to articulate and lead the change. This is by default the change agent, who becomes the focal point of the program, manages the improvement processes and drives the organisation in a challenging and compelling manner to an intermediate or the end state result. Very often this is also the person, who subsequently is “relieved from duty in a symbolical way” to communicate to the organisation that the end of the change has come.

The timing surrounding this messaging is crucial, as the organisation easily senses, whether the announcement on “the end of the change” is planned and pre-agreed or more of an opportunistic measure. When this measure has been planned in advance, the change agent picked for the job is usually an outside professional (consultant) or a trusted internal employee, that leaderships brings in to perform the role temporarily. In these planned circumstances, it should be apparent to all parties, that the change agent is there only for a finite period in time, to achieve the pre-set goals for the change with all the necessary authorities and leave the role again when the time has come. It is then evident to all parties involved, that the role is temporary “to shake things up and cut through the daily routines”. The change agent should also know, what his reward is going to be at the end of the change (albeit financially and non-financially, like a promotion, a new role etc). This allows leadership, after the change agent leaves the scene, to (re-) establish the management structures and reporting lines, which makes it clear to everyone that they operate in the “new steady state” from then onwards.

Not everyone is capable to operate under these conditions of “uncertainty”, but the right change agents are. It requires a high level of independency in “mind and matter”, to perform such a role on a temporary basis. Not everyone has it in him or her to be a change leader like Jobs, Musk, Gandhi, Kennedy….Putting their personal ego, gain and ambition aside, these people are largely driven by the greater good and making a difference. But also on a more mondain level, a change agent should be someone, that “frequently puts the greater good above one’s own interests”. That is the kind of fabric that a good change agent should also be made of or at least carry a fair doses of inside of them.

What does it take for change agents to succeed with the change?

In my opinion and experience, there are 7 principles to consider when setting up a successful change and transformational program, in which change agents can be successful in their role and subsequently also see the end of the very change that they are tasked to orchestrate.

1. Determine what kind of transformational change is required and select the right profile change agents for the job

A successful transformational change is largely dependent on the understanding what kind of change is pursued (revolutionary/evolutionary) and within what time frame (time challenged or not). Subsequently one needs to draw up a profile for the kind of change agent ideally would be most suited for the job, rather than immediately jump on the “name game” and “who is available and who not”.

However selecting the right calibre change agent for the job is at the same time no guarantee for success. The cultural environment and circumstances you catapult the change agent into, is also a hugely influencing factor. Even the best visionaries in the world may fail to gather people in the organisation behind them, if they don’t also make them see that there is a (personal/group) benefit in doing so.

And also the best communicators or team inspirators in the world will fail in a situation that, the organisation has decided not to be open to their messaging. In these circumstances, “an organisation is like a parachute, they only function when they are open.” The more skilled a change agent is in building trust and the better they understand the “organisational DNA”, the more likely they will be successful in creating the necessary believers and followers.

2. Be meticulously focussed on what the exact problem is that you are trying to resolve with the change and within what timeline

The better performing companies are more critical towards the common belief that more data, results in better understanding and decision making. However as these days so much data comes from so many sources, ambiguity, inconsistency and contradictions are simply inevitable. Since so much data, but also many personal opinions and experiences exist, people in an organisation can easily “find” information that supports their beliefs.

Before starting any change program it is therefore of paramount importance, that no concessions are made to first getting broad clarity amongst leadership on “what problem(s) need to be solved” and a common understanding is reached about the underlying evidence for that. Once clarity has been reached the organisation should then also ascertain, how much time it has to get to the envisioned end-state that should resolve (most of) these problems.

Successful companies understand that “smarter and informed people” tend to be better at crafting a “coherent story” around the change journey and plan ahead accordingly. Once that coherent story has grounded, it should become relentlessly used in all communication and used as yardstick for all decisions made. The rule of repetition helps the organisation to keep moving forward and weed out inevitable attacks on trying to deflect change from its course.

3. Visualise the end-state of the change

Clarity of vision is crucial in making the organisation understand the why, what and how of the change. Not everyone is capable to visualise for themselves what new way of working or a conceptual description of a new service/product could do for them in the future, once available. Leadership and change agents should dedicate enough time to this process of visualisation and understanding, to make sure that as many people in the organisation as possible, can and will buy into the change.

As in times of uncertainty, an organisation becomes even more, one full of “Kremlin readers”. Special attention should be given to the (lower) management layers in the organisation, whether they fully understand, are capable of and willing to also play their part in “changing the hearts and minds” of the people below and around them. Where people can get especially frustrated in these uncertain times of change, is if they feel that their management is all over the place on what they see themselves as important and also display a tendency to change their own vision often.

This will usually scare away your wider organisation (and always first your most skilled people) as they are not sure whether they are on a sinking ship. Usually that is for them the starting point to look for ways out. It is essential to note that a clear vision and visualisation process does not mean that there is subsequently one way to do things. Leadership should remain open to constructive suggestions and contributions from their organisation, on how to best execute on the vision.

4. Be clear on the expectations of your change agents and groom them for their next role

Leadership should be setting the scene upon the start of any change program. When the vision is clear and easy to communicate, goals and timelines are set, and the right change agent(s) for the program have been selected, leadership should be unambiguous about the expectations towards those leading the change. How instructive they need to be depends largely on the type of change agent selected.

When a more “charismatic and self-directed leader” has been selected in the role of change agent, clearly expectations can be formulated somewhat less instructive and detailed, as opposed to when dealing with a more “cooperative and inclusive leader”. But in both instances, one should be clear what the task at hand is, what success is envisioned to look like, by when milestones should be achieved and also when the job is considered done. Specifically also important is, what prospects there will be afterwards for the change agent.

If leadership treats the appointment of a change agent as “just instrumental for the job at hand”, the organisation does not necessarily get the full value from its investment in the change agent. Any change program is generating a fountain of knowledge, insights and experiences. The change agent operating in the middle of it, benefits most from this, especially as they usually are in the position, they oversee all areas of the business and disciplines. Leadership that understands this “unique value creation opportunity”, makes sure that there is a next challenge in sight for those change agents, that have gone through this process and “had their guts tested”.

Change agents who have what it takes, will help to create other leaders, and not just “an obedient following mob”. They will see to it that knowledge transfer and leveraging is optimised throughout the transformation process. This way, key people in the organisation get energised and feel empowered to carry/pass on the “change torch”. Leadership that recognises and values these special skills, make sure that the next step for the change agent is planned for. They do this because, they don’t want this knowledge, gained trust and build up loyalties and connections, just simply walk out of the door. 

5. Identify roadblocks and develop removal scenarios – protective shield for change agents

One of the reasons that change fails so often is that most sponsors in leadership positions do not (really) understand what it takes for the change and a change agent to succeed. Even when the change agents spends sufficient time on:

– building their alliances (make friends and build allies),

– remain conscious of their visibility and to make best use of it, invests time in and knows what their stakeholders want and how their interests develop of time,

– why and where group resistance is building up, personal interest prevail (establishment sets them up for failure)

.....,they will meet “roadblocks”.

Sometimes they can remove them on their own, sometimes leadership sponsor(s) need to step in and help alongside in removing them. Roadblocks can to some extend be predicted beforehand and should be captured in the plan, with their proposed remedial action(s). But also in many cases they occur in “full flight” and need to be addressed on the spot. Regardless if leadership steps in or decides not to step in, one should be aware that every move will be closely watched by the organisation. The action taken and the way it is communicated, sends an important message to the organisation.

This either helps to create and enhance momentum or invoke (more) resistance and disengagement, undesirably adding to a climate of derailment determination in (certain parts of) the wider organisation. Roadblock identification and planning should therefore be a dynamic process, to which relentless consideration is given, throughout the change. 

6. Stick to the plan, do not deviate but be agile in adopting to changing circumstances

As Darwin once put it, “it’s not the strongest species that survive, or the most intelligent, but the most responsive to change”. This statement underlines the importance of agility, which one-on-one applies to any change program conducted. Leaders who tend to be more operational and highly intuitive, are usually struggling somewhat with the concept of planning and structure.

Also leadership that is less confident and sure about the change vision, struggles with the visualisation of it and the resistance building up against it. This type of leadership displays either less of an appetite for planning or moves to the other end of the scale and seeks comfort in overplanning and -detailing. However when a change plan has been made, with balanced input in terms of knowledge, experience and vision, as well as with involvement of the right people, from various relevant levels in the organisation, it should be pursued with rigor. Not squandered at the first possible occurrence that appears contradictory to the plan.

Successful change is about turning plans into rigorous execution. Nobody expects a plan or its execution to be flawless from start to finish, so it needs an agile mindset and attitude to succeed. Stick to the plan and adapt where necessary, is what better performing organisations made successful. When the allied forces planned "D-day" in detail, they took many factors in consideration (e.g. weather conditions, enemy positions and movements) and adapted accordingly, but thankfully for all of us now, they did not abandon the plan.

7. Design intermediate milestones, and celebrate these widely

As we know, getting to your end-state change goals is not just a matter of taking one big leap, but more one of a series of smaller steps. It’s important to break the change journey down in important stage gates, that represent visible, communicable and meaningful moments, were everyone can understand that progress had been made and that the organisation collectively has moved closer to its end-state goals.

These stage gates should act as a marker, that the change is on track. Only a few people in an organisation can handle just being given the end-state goal without a lot of detail, as they have the capability to figure out the way to get there by themselves. However the majority of people needs to be guided, coached and encouraged to stay on track towards the envisioned ultimate goal. In addition, timing also remains an important element of milestone planning. When your planning is too ambitious or you’re planning on moving too fast, the organization will reject the change. But equally in allowing too much leeway, and do too few things, too slow, you won’t capture the momentum and get the necessary traction either.

Celebrating the achievement of intermediate milestones is crucial in making sure the organisation continues to move with the change. The majority share of people in the organisation, also justify getting the lion share of time and attention from leadership and the change agent. Yet there always remains a group, that does not want to rally around the change vision, but still carry important positions in the organisation.

Here it is of paramount importance, that leadership has the courage and avoids coming up with excuses, for making the necessary tough calls on these people at the beginning of the process, not halfway or at the end. This means, that leadership and the change agent should make those redundant, who are clearly not willing to or can never do the work needed, without constant oversight and involvement. Taking these decisions early, does also make room for those, who can and are willing to step up to the plate.

In summary when these 7 principles get balanced attention, chances are that the organisation beats the change effectiveness statistics comfortably. In pursuing change, one inevitably has to navigate unchartered waters. And by doing so, one faces simple, but also more protracted issues, many of which, just by merely shaking up vested interests. That is especially true for change agents in performing their tasks.

Change and transformations programs, no matter how much we learned about their effectiveness over the last decades, are still no “science”, that can be managed by simply applying e.g. PRINCE as a project management methodology or deploying transformation managements offices (TMOs).

Managing change and transformation is as in sailing, “we cannot control the wind, but we can direct the sails”. There still remains an element of “art” to it, regardless all methodologies, tools and techniques available. And although many people will have knowledge and opinions about how to set up and manage change as well as transformation journeys, these are in the end usually best performed and led by experienced professionals.

Mercure Ventures - Passionate about sharing, as none of us is as smart as all of us!

EDWIN VAN DER STAM - BUSINESS MERCURIST

Mercure Ventures is a non-traditional consultancy network firm that offers Accelerated Transformation Services, Interim Management and Value Based consultancy. Edwin has conducted himself over 70 programs across 4 continents. Professionals at Mercure Ventures are passionate about creating a sense of direction. They are perennial inspiration enthusiasts with a strong believe in infinite possibilities and shaping new realities.

What is a transformational change agent?

How can change agents help with the transformation?