One thing that is now recognised is that for a transformation to be successful it cannot be imposed on individuals – they must want to change. An excellent way of doing this is to empower them – let individuals and groups have a say in the way that the transformed organisation will work. I’m guessing that some managers will be nervously shuffling their feet at this point; others may be high-fiving.

Leaders who favour a command-and-control approach could be considering that the judicious use of employee surveys should be appropriate to demonstrate inclusion. Others, hooked on emotional intelligence and later concepts, may prefer a laissez-faire approach in which we adopt an emerging strategy for the change. Neither of these will work on its own, because both approaches have relevance in successful change. Herrero talks of Viral Change™ and uses words that include contagion and epidemic as characteristics in transforming organisations. However, for this to work, he identifies that rules must be in place within which individuals and groups can operate to implement the change.

This brings me back to anarchy, which Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher, described as ‘law and freedom without force’. My interpretation on this is that the laws are the rules and boundaries set down by an organisation’s senior managers within which implementing the transformation can operate. The freedom is the ability for those working in the organisation to make the change to themselves a reality so that it will stick; the contagion.

Who are the leaders in this change? Well most of them are people like me, and you – ordinary workers in the organisation that others are willing to mimic or follow; those who know what will work and what will not and can lead by example; those others trust. That sounds truly anarchic to me. What’s your view?

From the business case, we will have a clear set of business milestones that will shape the way we plan and monitor delivery of the change products (the deliverables).  Additionally, we will have identified potential risks to the costs of making the change happen and the business benefits we expect to gain from making the change stick.

To know if we are doing it right requires us to link the desired benefits to the change products and the operational impacts they must make in the new business-as-usual.  This mapping of benefits to operational impact to change products is developed from the benefits case.  The mapping, along with the business milestones, provides the basis for planning for the realisation of benefits at the appropriate points in the change journey.  It allows us to determine when each of the change products is needed, and what it must achieve, through highlighting the operational impacts the deliverable needs to make or contribute to.  In this way, we can be confident throughout the change journey that we really are on track to deliver the benefits.

Things to consider

1. Have the benefits been mapped to impacts and products, so we can demonstrate how the benefits will be delivered?
2. Do we have achievable milestones against which we can plan the delivery of the change products (deliverables) to make the desired operating impacts?
3. Do we have a reception strategy in business-as-usual for the adoption of the change products, so that the right operating impacts will be made and the benefits will be realised?
4. Are we using product-based planning that focuses on achievement?
5. Are key performance indicators (KPIs) in place and being monitored for the change journey?

Properly structured change initiatives, involving programmes and projects, are designed to avoid this but, too often, insufficient thought and planning is put into how the impacted business units will adopt multiple ‘waves’ of change. Effective portfolio and change management disciplines are good at addressing planned change, driven by the strategy, but not always adequate at coping with additional significant ‘must do’ changes.

Things to consider

1. Has your organisation an overarching corporate portfolio view of change?
2. Have you discussed and agreed with affected business units:
   • The type, rate and volume of change being introduced into their areas?
   • How much change they are trying to introduce themselves and how much is coming from external initiatives?
   • How any concerns and issues can be overcome?
   • Where ‘hot-spots’ will arise and what strategies and tactics will be used to address these?
   • What must be sacrificed to ensure that the operational business units will not be overwhelmed?

Emergencies, opportunities and externally imposed mandates will, despite strategic intent, all play a role in altering corporate priorities for change and can destabilise the portfolio.  Even worse, this creates the impression of a lack of clarity of purpose and inconsistency in senior management behaviour to the staff who are involved in the changes.  There is little worse for morale and motivation than the perception that an organisation’s leadership is prone to erratic, short-term behaviours – especially when this is not really the case!

The real question, therefore, is how do we deliver strategic change objectives and structure a consistent portfolio, while maintaining the capability to respond to short-term tactical priorities?

Things to consider

Have you discussed and agreed:

1. the relative priority of work within the portfolio and the level of resource commitment that the work requires?
2. the organisation and mechanisms that accept unplanned work into the portfolio and how this will be communicated?
3. the value system that is being used to drive the portfolio?

And are you considering:

1. a ‘practical’ level of planned resource utilisation for the current and foreseeable circumstances?
2. making explicit the rationale for accepting any unplanned work, particularly in terms of the impact on the overall portfolio?