Gambling is not officially in the lexicon of effective services delivery implementation, so Lady Luck is not the best change agent. Rolling the dice is not the optimum way to promote adoption of the degree of change that altering a target operating model represents. Yet, most organizations spend very little time gaming the reactions of the stakeholders whose very business processes are about to change, and developing the right messages to support change.
Transformation teams expect that the dictate to outsource or offshore that come down from above are sufficient to keep all the players — business units and users — in line, and the noise levels acceptably low. Unfortunately, little attention is paid to implementing a change messaging campaign that makes it easy for supporters to get onsides, and muffle the unreasonable objections of those who just don’t want to play ball. So when affected employees grumble and find subtle ways to continually subvert the path of change, transformation management shrug their collective shoulders and wonder why.
C'est la Guerre
Effective change-messaging programs are as tightly plotted as a battle plan, under the premise that, as in any skirmish, there is an inflection point when the war is either won or lost. Taking full measure of the enemy, determining on which fronts the battle should be waged, and developing an arsenal of propaganda to outflank each warring party, is critical to success.
The response of stakeholders subject to change generally follows a predictable evolution. After initial awareness of any adjustment in the operating model, stakeholders naturally “try on” the change, entering into a period of self concern when each sorts through the implications of service delivery upon his current roles and responsibilities. Following the self-concern stage is a period of mental tryout, when the stakeholder tries to sort through WIIFM or “what’s in it for me?”
At this inflection point, the change games begin in earnest. And managing how the messages are internalized and interpreted over time becomes crucial — yet, most transformation managers cede the opportunity to win the war to the vagaries of Lady Luck.
Time for the transformation team to jump into the shoes of each stakeholder group, and plot a messaging program that ensures what is said and what is heard are one and the same. For example, the internal sale for many services-globalization programs is predicated on the ability to increase the focus on revenue generation. Yet, the more clearly heard subtext is “cut cost.” The boon of self-service is perceived as “incompetent, impersonal helpdesk.” And the twin benefit of implementing new global systems and processes is read as “not as good as before.” While management touts the “transparency of communications,” stakeholders hear “they are fattening up for the kill — reductions in force, transferring our work offshore.” Understanding how to communicate change as the stakeholders take positions at each stage is critical to success.
