Organizational changes are planned with optimism and enthusiasm and an eye to benefits that will accrue. Organizational change, however, never happens in a vacuum. It always involves people, and when people are involved, the number of forces at work multiplies geometrically. Merging Glaxo Wellcome with Smith Kline Beecham may have looked good on paper, but making such a merger work required work.

It requires anticipation and preparation.  Not reaction.  This is a classic pay-me-now, or pay-me-WAY-MORE-later situation.

Five implementation factors

Five implementation factors determine that modulate and temper resistance are the keys to the success of any attempted change When all five are correctly managed they not only insure success but also create an organizational climate that cultivates and accelerates future innovation.

1. Sponsorship. Sponsorship is the single most crucial factor for insuring the success of a change effort. For an organization to make a change it is indispensable that those most affected by the change know beyond a shadow of a doubt that those who are authorizing and engineering the change have the complete support of those responsible for implementing it—the key players who have power up and down and across the organization.

For change to occur there must be an unbroken chain of support for the change, which, by being expressed through the decisions and actions of sponsors on a day-to-day basis, communicates real buy-in on the part of senior management. Anything else is interpreted as lip service and a sign that it is time to dig in those heels.

Change, by its nature, throws an organization into a state of instability that constitutes a minor crisis. At Glaxo Wellcome during the time of the first rumored merger with Smith Kline Beecham, staff morale hit a low and people were immobilized by fear. People were uncertain about where the new company would be headquartered and whether they would continue to be employed. As is the case with all change, suddenly what was given no longer was a sure thing. In the state of confusion that ensued, the daily actions of important opinion-shapers within the organization were scrutinized much more sharply by those who were going to carry out and live with the change.

In all such situations people seek to gain clues as to the real opinions of those higher in the organization. Actions that display steadiness and that are consistent with the proposed change let people know that a change is really happening, and that it has been thought through and is backed at all levels.

2.Track record. An organization’s past track record with change initiatives plays a crucial role in the likelihood of success for any new initiative. A history of failed or poorly-executed attempts reduces the likelihood of success without an extensive expenditure of resources for managing the new initiative.

Fundamentally, failed efforts reduce the credibility of leadership in the same way that inconsistent parents who fail to back up their directives appear indecisive to their children. People tend to bet on the track record, and past failures multiply their resistance to expending efforts on behalf of a new change that may never get off the ground.

On the other hand, a history of effectively managed and successful implementations imparts expectations that change will be managed well and completed. Such a history goes a long way toward producing a generally positive attitude toward change and greater receptivity to new initiatives. Therefore it is wise to carry through on change. At Glaxo Wellcome, rumors of change had circulated for what seemed to employees to be an excruciatingly long time without resolution and then suddenly the merger was off. This vagueness took a toll.

3. Organizational stress. The degree of stress being experienced within an organization at any moment has a crucial relationship to the likelihood of success of any new change initiative. The inherently disruptive nature of change makes change itself stressful even when it is positive. If an organization is stressed, its resiliency is already under attack and its resources are drained. People can only attend to a handful of things at any one time. Low organizational stress levels produce an atmosphere more conducive to change because its reserves of strength are not being already tapped by other attention-draining and resource-consuming crises.

4. Cultural fit. The degree to which a proposed change is consistent with the existing culture of an organization reduces its disruptiveness and thereby increases the likelihood of its being embraced by those who have a stake in or are directly affected by the change. Fewer resources are required to bring about a change that is consonant with the historically espoused values and unwritten rules of an organization, because such changes produce less threat and disruption.

5. Staff readiness. The greater the degree to which the actual people affected by a change effort are ready to embrace the change, the easier it is for the change to be implemented. There are several factors that can enhance readiness. These factors include:

• sponsorship that is clear, uniform and unequivocal

• a change that is clearly defined and explained

• a clear explication of the necessity of the change, including possible current or future pain that may be caused by it, and including a clear case for the change ultimately being a solution to the pain

• the inclusion of staff input into the change and the change process

• the active encouragement of the expression of doubt and the acceptance of resistance as natural, and valued; favorable response to resistance; a variety of communication vehicles in place used often and effectively.

Fundamentally the factors that support staff readiness can be summarized as follows:  when change is reinforced in ways that are coherent with staff needs and expressed preferences, and resources for support have been allocated and are available to support the change, a climate of innovation is created.

Three additional key points.

Managers need to remember three key points about transition management:

• resistance is inevitable. It must be surfaced, and it must be managed throughout the entire implementation process.

• no “deals” can be made to simply put off change because it is perceived as negative.

• during any change process, performance and morale always drop and uncertainty rises before improving as the desired state is reached.

The ability for an organization to adapt and to make adaptation and innovation cultural norms is crucial in order to succeed. Successful organizations must know how to set their own pace and go their own way when that is called for, but increasingly they must be able to quickly adapt to changes—sometimes evolutionary, sometimes revolutionary.

For this organizations must cultivate the elements that support organizational change and create an environment that accelerates innovation. Otherwise today’s business environment has a way of rather quickly turning today’s giants into tomorrow’s dinosaurs.