Change management is normal, good management
For a long time, I have agonized change management and its special position. Isn’t good management in the modern world continuous reacting to change and acting according to those changes? Of course, if the management is bad – lacking goals, lacking responsibilities, lazy and unmonitored, a separate program to alter the management is required. Good management – at least when it comes to human productivity – is systematically stout: decide goals, responsibilities and roles, function actively and measure changes often enough, so that the changes to the business and the world may be reacted upon quickly. And through strategic wisdom and intuition future changes might be predicted.
The contents of the change management model from the leadership research
Over the last few years I have done leadership research on companies’ superiors, during which, I have surveyed the concreteness of their goals, the leadership’s know-how, working methods and activity, experienced leadership and human productivity. I modelled the leadership research material into the change management’s three sectors:
- Goal driven: the concreteness of the goals in competence, motivation, atmosphere, workplace safety, work performance and the profitability of business.
- Communication: conversation with employees about goals, capabilities, work responsibilities, new work things and development ideas, giving feedback, active motivating as well as actively listening to personnel.
- Leadership activity: activity in work organization and work practices development, following the development of your own field, knowing customer needs and reacting to customer feedback, following the profitability of your business.
Communication is the most active, goals have the most room for development
In my modelling of change management, communication was the strongest aspect and goals required the most improvement. In its entirety, the change management factor’s average was 77,9 and varied between 50 and 90. This is displayed in image 1.
Image 1 shows that 90% of the superiors are placed in the change management factor somewhere between 66 and 88. The average and average spread of the change management factor indicate the following: poor is below 66, tolerable is 66-74, average is 74-82, good is 82-90 and excellent is over 90.
The superiors’ human productivity support change management
Change management is goals, communication and activity. Next, I tested how the superiors’ and leaders’ own human productivity reflected in the change management levels.
The interpretation of image 2 is clear as day: excellent leaders with good human productivity are also good change managers, and vice versa, those who have poor human productivity are bad change managers. We are at the core of the managers own well-being, tune and dynamicity.
Human productivity after all consists of the combination of motivation, commitment, know-how, working ability and controlling your own work. Affecting human productivity also consists of all its fields, but the greatest emphasizes are on motivation and know-how, managing all the aspects of your own work.
If human productivity is an important fuel of change management, how is it developed?
Image 2 visualizes the great importance of human productivity in the activity of superiors’ change management. From that awakens a question, how is the management’s and superiors’ human productivity developed? And the answer is the same is it is with personnel: with the support of your superior, trust and encouragement.
The superiors given trust and feedback is composed of the sum of the two questions in image 3’s example. Which is divided into three groups based on averages and average spread. On the 9-10 level of superior’s support, 77% belong into the highest group of human productivity. In the weakest trust and feedback group, 53% of superiors belong into the lowest group of human productivity. Such is the strength of a superior’s support to a person in a superior position!
That’s not all! Change management activity also has a connection to profitability!
The “Työkaari” project by The Technology Industries of Finland gives a good test group of 35 SMS-companies for analyzing change management’s financial effects. And it does have some! In the group of worst change management, the profitability (EBITDA) was 3%-units lower than the industry median, in the average group it was 1,4%-units lower and in the best group it was 1%-unit higher than the median. Change management has significance in the finances – if you want to separately speak of change management, that is.
The difference between the good and bad change management showed as a 4%-unit difference in profitability between the best and worst companies. That is a big difference.
To conclude – the short syllabus of change management
The definition and analyses that I have made give clear results and conclusions:
- there is no separate change management – there is only management, in which at a good level changes are reacted to and people are managed in a changing environment,
- human productivity is to be led well, it ensures good practices of leadership,
- superiors and leaders are to be led well as employees, ensuring that they experience good leadership, this is the essence of managing leadership,
- the human productivity of superiors and the management increases, and it has a positive effect of the change management activity,
- change management is good management, in which goal driven function, good communication and managemental activity are combined,
- good change management is reflected on profitability and through that on sustainable growth.