Page 348 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh18v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:39 PM Page 331

Resonance

Ensuring appropriate structure

Here we are looking at whether particular management processes are in place, at
how effectively they are deployed as part of ‘business as usual’ and at how well
they are operated in support of change. Specifically we look at the following
processes:
■ Performance management. Most significant organizations have performance
management systems in place. These typically comprise some mix of budgets,
monthly reporting, KPI’s, balanced scorecards, performance appraisals, etc.
The real question is how well are they operated? There is a long list of studies
showing that the answer here is not particularly positive. Often poor perform-
ance is not explored, challenged and resolved. Also we need to look at how
well the measures used to track a change programme are integrated into the
performance management framework in place. In turn we need to know
whether the change objectives have been defined, and if they are measurable
in the first place.
■ Governance. This relates to the arrangements in place regarding accountability
for change. Poorly managed changes are often characterized by unclear
accountabilities. In turn we observe behaviour which appears to be indifferent
to the achievement of intended outcomes. People suggest that change is out
of their control. ‘What can you do?’ cry some. ‘Resistance is inevitable’ say
others. But a robust governance arrangement will define board-level account-
ability for change and for benefits realization, programme management struc-
tures and processes, and reporting arrangements.
■ Risk management. Naturally our concern here relates to assessing risk both in
terms of change outcomes but also in terms of the risk of disruption associated
with implementing change. Simply put, does the organization both assess
those risks and provide appropriate risk mitigation strategies?
■ Unintended consequences. In effect a special case of risk but deserving of separate
treatment. Here we seek to assess whether the decision process associated with
any set of change initiatives has taken a thorough look at all possible conse-

quences of any proposed changes.

Resonance

Here we are building on the ideas of Gardner (2004) and Kelman (2005). In his
recent book, Changing Minds, Gardner defines resonance (of an attempt to change
someone’s mind) as relating to the affective component of the human mind. An
idea, view or perspective resonates to the extent that it feels ‘right’ to individu-
als, seems to fit the situation and the prevailing need and therefore convinces
people that further consideration is not needed. While ideas gain resonance often
because there is evidence to support them and/or because the proponent of the
idea is credible, nevertheless the concept is more than an idea based on rational

331