Tina Simpson, JD, MSPH
Principal
And NOW FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT
There are many reasons an organization may utilize consultants, such as when there is a need for deep expertise in a technical or specific practice area, when there is a lack of internal capacity, or when an organization is aware of organizational ‘blind spots’’ and seeks an objective, outside perspective.
In my own experience, whatever the motivating factor, a common thread in all engagements is the “softer” skill of change management. This includes facilitating hard conversations across an organization. Consultants can be (or should be) catalysts for change within an organization: Helping an organization anticipate, implement, and sustain needed changes and innovations is an implicit deliverable.
Even in my most technical engagements, such as when a client seeks to understand intersecting privacy or security regulations and my engagement is predicated on the letters after my name, it always comes down to the question of how to implement that knowledge and desired future state within the organization. This is particularly true when working in the intersection of technology and existing operations. We look to technology as a solution to our (existing) problems, and overlook the fact that when introducing technological innovations, you will inherently introduce new problems that must be addressed: training people on the use of the new technology, what workflows and processes need to change to accommodate the new technology, and (hopefully) ensuring interoperablility between systems.
That is why, when I met Elizabeth Varones at a MedTech and Digital Health conference in London last year, (during that happy sliver of time before the Omicron Variant) I kinda “nerded out” (#owningit) over the chance to speak with a professional who focuses specifically on change management. Varones is the founder and President of Anthos Consulting, a consulting firm operating in the US and the UK providing leadership coaching, and transformation and change management consulting.
“We should talk.” I said, when she explained her work.
We made plans for a coffee the following week. While that coffee did not happen (I ended up returning back to the States early following the uncertainty of travel restrictions following Omicron), over the following months we had the opportunity for a continuing Zoom discussion on the science and art of leading and sustaining change within an organization.
The takeaways from those conversations provides important insight for leaders as they prepare for change, and persist in making that change “stick.” The first is that organizational change is not something that can effectively be dictated by fiat. While leadership is often ready to just get on with it (and after scrutinizing the need and direction of a given change from every angle, this restlessness is highly understandable), an ounce of people-focused preparation and communication is worth a pound of cure. Stakeholder engagement, including creating spaces for people to express their fear, anger, and other “negative emotions” – and for leadership to adapt based on that feedback – is indispensable.
Another, related point, is that change takes time: It is a marathon and not a sprint. It is not just a question of how you support (and hold accountable) those in the organization upon whom the change may be ‘imposed’ – management and leadership also need support to ensure consistency, effective communication, and adaptability. We are all creatures of habit.
I asked Elizabeth if I could interview her for this series on change management. I’m happy to share an excerpt of that exchange (edited for length and clarity).
In your experience, what do you see as the most common mistake leaders make when implementing organizational or programmatic change?
[People] tend to focus on the aspects of change most closely related to the core function of the organization and don’t consider how the identity of the organization will shift. Creating long-lasting, meaningful change requires leadership to think through all aspect of the process. That means not only understanding the WHY, WHAT, HOW, WHO and WHEN of change, but also how their core “brand” identity and organizational culture will evolve.
You have worked with many organizations across different industries, have you observed a difference in the way organizations (by industry or culture type) approach change?
Yes. Leaders emphasize the aspects of change that are most aligned with the day-to-day versus creating a complete story that fully explains aspects that might seem obvious to them. Process-oriented organizations or functions (e.g., healthcare) tend to focus more on the HOW details and without setting the right context, need for change, and implications if the organization doesn’t change. Marketing-led organizations focus more on the WHY and WHAT, but don’t often think through how the day-to-day processes and behaviors need to change. What is important is that you are aware of and account for an organizational or individual bias.
What do you identify as the most impactful mistake people make when implementing organizational or programmatic change?
Thinking that expressing negative emotions about change is bad. Change can represent an opportunity or threat and the biggest risk to an organization is not knowing where employees stand. Some believe that asking people to share negative emotions around change will further perpetuate these feelings and stunt progress. People need a forum to share how they feel about the change without negative repercussions. When we aren’t aware of fears, frustrations, and apprehension, we can’t adequately support people or adapt the approach. Leaders may be reluctant to take this approach because it could take longer and is less straightforward. The key to making change is to accept that most of it involves changing people, which is never as straightforward as we’d like.
What then should leaders do to avoid or mitigate this error?
Taking a people-centric approach to managing change will ensure you fully understand how people are responding and provides valuable information that will help leaders adapt and drive greater adoption…. Because change involves loss (and grief), we need to recognize that supporting the “emotional, personal, and not-always-rational” aspects will accelerate the organization’s ability to implement change. Many organizations stick to logical and rational components of change (because it’s cleaner), which keeps the barriers invisible. We need to ask the tough, messy questions so we can better adapt and change our approach. This approach makes the organization more resourceful in supporting people development and adapting to change—which will only speed up.
Secondly, you have to remember and plan for the fact that not every person will readily admit their feelings about loss of competence, loyalty, and identity [that comes with change] as it exposes great vulnerability in the workplace. Successful programs will account for these aspects in communications, which make it a safer, more comfortable environment to share.
Finally, we’ve talked a lot about planning for and implementing change, what do you wish more people were aware of as it relates to making change “stick”?
Sustainability is key to any change and is often overlooked. This includes empowering managers and change agents to communicate and coach others and collect information about how things are going. There’s a messy period after you institute a change and it’s unavoidable. Time and support are required to create a new reality. This is where change agents are critical. These change agents can help motivate others to endure the discomfort if they are connected to the “why” and feel there is someone there to listen and brainstorm new ways of doing things.
Elizabeth Varones is the Founder of Anthos Consulting, and lives in London, England. Anthos means “flower” in Greek, reflecting the firm’s goal of helping leaders flourish by offering the necessary structure and support to achieve goals and create lasting results.