change management - Blogs - DPG Community2024-03-29T00:50:47Zhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/feed/tag/change%2BmanagementThe #LoveCPD Spotlight Series May editionhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/the-lovecpd-spotlight-series-may-edition2018-05-31T12:55:54.000Z2018-05-31T12:55:54.000ZLucy Boltonhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/LucyBolton<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/125317119?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>This months spotlight focuses on:</p>
<ol>
<li>Have you used reverse mentoring?</li>
<li>How would you rate your current recruitment strategy?</li>
<li>How does your manager inspire you?</li>
<li>What change management models have you used?</li>
</ol>
<p>To view this months spotlight online <a href="http://docs.dpgplc.co.uk/Spotlight/May_18/Flipbook/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">click here.</a></p>
<p>To download a copy of this months spotlight click here: <a href="http://docs.dpgplc.co.uk/Spotlight/May_18/May_spotlight.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Download</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>To help us out with next months spotlight issue, click into each of the zones and enter your vote into each of the polls on the right hand side!</p>
<p>If you have any ideas on what next months topics could be, share them in the comments below!!</p>
</div>Is anyone actually ready for GDPR?https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/is-anyone-actually-ready-for-gdpr2018-05-03T08:39:42.000Z2018-05-03T08:39:42.000ZMichael Millwardhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/MichaelMillward<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/14618646?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Anyone who spends any time looking at HR related social media will have noticed the dominance of General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) in posts over recent weeks. It’s as if the whole HR profession has ignored something that was announced two years ago and as the deadline for compliance gets increasingly closer there has been some form of mass panic.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The implementation of GDPR will according to research conducted by the Cybersecurity and Information Resilience division of the British Standards Institute (BSI) affect 97percent of businesses, but the same research identified that just 5percent of businesses claim that they will be compliant with the regulations when they come into force on 25th May 2018.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Not being compliant with the stricter rules concerning data protection that GDPR will impose could be an expensive mistake. With the supervisory authorities suspected to be keen to find companies to use as an example to encourage greater compliance we can expect to see them imposing fines up to the maximum 20million Euros or 4percent of an organisation’s annual global turnover.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">When there is a big data security problem at a big organisation it makes the TV news bulletins and the front pages of the tabloids. We don’t hear about the smaller businesses that are affected by the same sort of incidents, yet 20percent of businesses have had a data compromising incident in the past 12 months. The problem is bigger that you would think, and it is getting more difficult to comply. The Data Protection Commissioner reported 2,795 valid data security breaches in 2017, an increase of 26% from 2016.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">You can have all the organisational systems and processes in place that it is possible to create, but the weakest link in your data protection are your employees. Over half of organizations surveyed by the BSI highlighted their concern regarding the role of their employees in GDPR compliance.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">It is a weak link that is relatively easy to secure, but over 50percent of organizations do not provide data protection training to employees.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">You need to have a member of the senior management team who leads every activity related to data protection but only 20percent of organisations take this relatively simple step that could create a strategic approach to data protection, get things done and save a lot of money.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">This senior manager will need resources to achieve compliance, people, time and money, yet 64percent of businesses are expecting employees to achieve compliance whilst also completing all their other workload.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Data protection is as important as physical security, just as you have someone in the organisation who has the key to the front door and knows the burglar alarm code you are going to need someone who will have responsibility for ensuring that the data the organisation holds is secure, a data protection officer (DPO). This is going to be an ongoing responsibility. But 63percent of organisations do not have someone who has been allocated this role. Of the organisations that have a nominated DPO only 27percent have trained that person.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">It seems that many organisations are scratching the surface when it comes to the wider implications of GDPR. More than 40percent of businesses are not aware of the Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs), and only 12percent claimed to have a good knowledge of what is a key additional requirement of GDPR. A PIA is a risk-based assessment that is used to ensure that the rights and freedoms of individuals are protected when an organisation processes any of their data. and alarmingly the research revealed that over 40 per cent of organizations surveyed weren’t aware that PIAs will be a mandatory requirement and only 12 per cent claimed to have a good knowledge of PIAs.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">There’s a lot of talk surrounding the GDPR, but with just days to go to implementation day this BSI research shows that organizations are still unprepared and don’t fully understand what’s required of them. With the right sort of training becoming GDPR ready is less complicated, less expensive and less daunting than many businesses think.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Data processing is an issue for everyone and awareness levels are increasing – the recently published Data Protection Commissioner annual report highlighted that complaints had increased by 79 per cent compared to 2016. The figure is anticipated to be even higher in 2017.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">It is important to remember that the new General Data Protection Regulation was set up to benefit everyone and having the right systems in place is not only good practice but will ensure that organizations build trust and transparency with their customers and minimise privacy and security risks for the future.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;">You can find more information about GDPR training at <a href="https://dpg.workplacelearningcentre.co.uk/product/gdpr" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Work Place Learning Centre</a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></p>
</div>Does HR and L&D need a good ‘nudge’?https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/does-hr-and-l-d-need-a-good-nudge2017-10-10T20:34:33.000Z2017-10-10T20:34:33.000ZGary Norrishttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/GaryNorris<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217372?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p></p>
<p>Richard Thaler won the Noble prize in economics for his work on ‘nudge theory’ this week. Is nudge theory something we should be applying in HR and L&D? Maybe you already are?</p>
<p>Nudge theory involves affecting a person’s behaviour and choices based on subtle and indirect prompts rather than through instructions or the threat of punishment. It is a change-management tool that minimises resistance and confrontation and suggests humans are more easily affected by peer pressure than logical thought.</p>
<p>Here are some examples of nudges:</p>
<ul>
<li>Opt out instead of opt in schemes for pensions and organ donation.</li>
<li>Babies’ faces have been painted on shop shutters in areas of South-East London as people are less likely to damage something if it has a baby’s face on it.</li>
<li>The sign on the motorway roadworks that says ‘My Mummy works here’ encourages drivers to slow down.</li>
<li>Reducing the number of lifts in new buildings to encourage people (that can) to take the stairs.</li>
<li>The fly etched on the bottom of the urinal that helps to focus the user’s aim.</li>
</ul>
<p>Entertaining examples of the use of nudge theory can be found on <a href="http://www.thefuntheory.com/" target="_self">http://www.thefuntheory.com/</a></p>
<p>Examples that are more relevant to the HR world include:</p>
<ul>
<li>Having ‘email free days’ in the office which result in people getting up from their seat and going to speak to colleagues.</li>
<li>Downsized packets of paper for printers and photocopiers, thereby increasing the number of times one must fill the machine. With the aim being that people use less paper.</li>
<li>Bike-to-work, making healthy food more accessible than unhealthy food, and activity days can all help affect employee well-being.</li>
<li>Sharing information about the cost of not following Health and Safety procedure and how that cost must be recouped by the organisation can encourage compliance.</li>
</ul>
<p>As HR professionals, I’m sure we all agree that positive reinforcement is the way to affect behavioural change for the better. I think nudges can give us a ‘quick-win’ on some key issues and help us steer the ship away from those situations where people entrench themselves into arbitrary disagreement.</p>
<p>I’d love to hear about any examples of nudges in your organisations. Likewise, please share any behaviours you’d like to see changed and maybe the Community can suggest the nudge.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>(Image source: <a href="http://www.freeimages.com/photo/move-it-shorty-1309492">http://www.freeimages.com/photo/move-it-shorty-1309492</a>)</em></p>
<p></p>
</div>Pursuing Good Business Leadershiphttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/pursuing-good-business-leadership2017-02-09T12:43:10.000Z2017-02-09T12:43:10.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217177?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357876?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357876?profile=original" width="450" class="align-right"></a>Imagine, right now, that you are attached to a lie-detector and you are asked, “Are you a good business leader?” How would you answer? </p>
<p>If you are supremely confident, you might respond quickly, “Of course!” If you are more modest or less confident you might say, “I think so.” Either way, the likelihood is, like most executives and senior leaders, you are accustomed to empirical performance measures and will therefore have a reasonable basis for your answer. Accustomed to being in control and, perhaps unwilling to come across as unsure, you would be unlikely to stall by asking, “What do you mean by good?”</p>
<p>Yet, ‘good’ is a subjective term, and you would be quite within your rights to seek further clarification, or even to pull out that old consulting chestnut by responding, “It depends.” The fact is, your answer might well depend on who is operating the lie-detector and what lies behind the question or where the emphasis lies. Hopefully, however, the pressure derives from the lie-detector and this is a question you regularly ask yourself anyway. (If it isn’t, you definitely have little right to answer positively. A good leader will always be questioning their performance and looking to do better.)</p>
<p>So let’s move on to take a look at what you are doing to assess your leadership, and perhaps identify pointers for improvement.</p>
<p><img class="mce-pagebreak">Let’s start with productivity. There are two basic questions you need to ask yourself here.</p>
<ol>
<li>Are you satisfied with the productivity of your organisation?</li>
<li>If so, should you be?</li>
</ol>
<p>Productivity is invariably an issue, and the fact is it is always a people issue. In order to improve productivity you need to change the way people behave and/or the way they interact. “What about new systems and technology?” I hear you ask. Certainly they help to shape the environment, but your ability to optimise your return on investment on them depends on:</p>
<ul>
<li>The speed with which they are adopted;</li>
<li>The extent to which they are used;</li>
<li>The proficiency with which they are used.</li>
</ul>
<p>All of these depend on people, as does any reorganisation or organisational change. Thus it is hardly stretching a point to say that effective change ultimately depends on people. And, as a leader, your role is distinguished by the need to oversee both the present operations and the transition to an improved future. By extension, this demands managing your employees effectively. Hardly a surprise since ‘leadership’ identifies the ability to work with people. You cannot be a good leader if you cannot obtain the committed effort of the people you lead, or if you cannot successfully deliver change.</p>
<p>So, with surveys generally identifying that a significant majority (almost 70%) of all organisational change initiatives fail to meet their stated objectives, you might reconsider your answer to the initial question. If you want to improve productivity and create the business transformation that delivers step-change improvement in your organisation’s performance and bottom line results, you need to focus more on your people. </p>
<p>For Traci Fenton at <a href="http://www.worldblu.com/leadership.php" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Worldblu</a> this begins with creating greater <em>freedom at work</em>. For Alexander Kjerulf at <a href="http://woohooinc.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Woohoo Inc</a> it is about creating <em>happiness at work</em>. (If that sounds too unbusinesslike for you check out his very good <a href="http://positivesharing.com/2017/02/the-20-most-common-objections-to-happiness-at-work-and-why-theyre-wrong/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">video</a> addressing any likely objections you may have.) Both approaches will help you become a good (or better) manager, because they start with people. They just have different starting points.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;">Ultimately a focus on your people entails a more humane approach to business. This still means optimising your human capital, but doing so less from the point of the benefits to you and rather from the benefits to them. Thus it still means winning employee engagement but by creating a common purpose and providing a culture and environment that provides the autonomy, mastery and purpose that enables people to enjoy their work and creates a sense of satisfaction and self-fulfillment.</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357931?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357931?profile=original" width="450" class="align-center"></a></p>
<p>The ‘Every Individual Matters’ Model offers you exactly that. A framework of shared purpose it underpins a new employer/employee relationship with little or none of the innate conflict that has historically cursed industrial relations. You might, perhaps, even call it <em>love at work </em>but it’s not the name that matters; it’s the results. And those could exceed anything you might currently contemplate. </p></div>How do you view change?https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/how-do-you-view-change2017-02-02T14:38:15.000Z2017-02-02T14:38:15.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217162?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>Change is an integral part of life. So much so that we are often completely unaware of it. We simply wake up one day to the realization that something familiar isn’t quite the same as we thought it was.</p><p>We experienced a good example of this over the Christmas holidays, visiting our young grandchildren for almost a month. As you would expect, the children we met on the first day were very different from the young children we had last seen. More surprising, however, was how much they changed <em>during</em> our time with them. It wasn’t only that, even after a couple of weeks, they were so proficient at things they couldn’t do when we arrived. Nor was it just the delicious festive food that made them feel heavier. We were sure that they also grew physically!</p><p>The fact is change is continuous. In the 21<sup>st</sup> Century, however, we are perhaps more aware of it than ever, and the fact that – due to the massive technological advances – the pace seems to be faster and the demands on us more urgent. So much so, that ‘change management’ has not only become part of the lexicon, but a recognized skill and much sought after competency. But are we being misguided?</p><p><img class="mce-pagebreak"/>The term ‘change management’ suggests that change is specific and implies that it happens at a specific point in time and can therefore be manipulated. This doesn’t jell with the concept of change being ongoing. The ongoing nature of change makes it more evolutionary, and thus far more difficult to manage. It also reinforces the need to make your organisation more organic – as I described <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/business-leaders-step-up-your-role-pioneer-bay-jordan?trk=mp-author-card" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Business Leaders as Pioneers">last week</a>. </p><p>In his book Sapiens, Yuval Noah Harari writes, <em>“Every point in history is a crossroad. A single travelled road leads from the past to the present, but myriad paths fork off into the future.” </em>In other words, history is actually the outcome of decisions made in the continuum that is time. This makes it less deterministic and more haphazard than you might think. After all, no one can control events for every moment of the day. And the same is true in business.</p><p>Substitute the word ‘business’ for ‘history’ and you can just as easily say “Every point in business is a crossroad.” This emphasises the point. Like history, business performance is an outcome. But it is the outcome of a myriad of possibilities. To be successful you need to be able to respond to any one of those. And managing change is more often than not a case of focussing on one in particular.</p><p>All too often, things only work until they don’t. By the time you realise that they are no longer working it is too late. You end up scrambling to identify a new solution and stuck on the change management treadmill trying to introduce it. Trying to manage change is a mug’s game, and success will always be less than you intended. You will do far better to create an organic culture that responds to change as it happens. You will be less likely to find yourself scrambling for a solution and trying to create and direct a change because it might have already evolved. </p><p>Recently popular management blogger Seth Godin wrote, <em>“Intentional action is the hallmark of a professional</em>.” The <a href="http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2017/02/but-when-will-you-abandon-it.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="Not if, but when">context</a> of this statement is the need to replace conventional systems that he implies are already obsolete, but which still prevail. As such it may seem like another call for more effective change management. Hopefully, you won’t fall into that trap.</p><p>Of course it goes without saying that you need to think before you act. But your business depends on the way your people act. Your people are the ones who create that myriad of possibilities. Therefore every individual matters and your intention needs to be on creating an organic environment and a culture where actions are shaped by a common purpose that makes people more adaptable and responsive to change. That is how you ensure that change evolves naturally rather than as a top down – and often too late – requirement.</p></div>Management Evolution: Where are you at?https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/management-evolution-where-are-you-at2017-01-20T10:26:46.000Z2017-01-20T10:26:46.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217144?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>You probably know that, if you put a frog in cold water and slowly heat it, it will eventually boil to death. This fact was popularised by management guru Charles Handy in his 1989 book, “The Age of Unreason.” But even though you know the parable, do you ever stop to think about it, its implications and its relevance? After all, Handy must have had a reason for telling it.</p><p>For me, the story is an analogy for evolution, where change is rarely immediately noticeable. In describing how a frog, normally averse to hot water and aware of the danger it poses, fails to act when the change is incremental, Handy illustrates the danger of gradual change and the way we can be totally oblivious to it. This is a constant danger and particularly pertinent today in the way we run our organisations and institutions: even though we acknowledge change as one of our biggest management challenges. </p><p>The fact is, despite acknowledging this and scrambling to adapt, we persist in using past approaches which are neither appropriate nor effective. If you doubt this, just compare the way you are managing today with the way you managed ten or twenty years ago. Despite claims that “command and control” management is dead and demands for “Management 2.0”, you very likely rely on traditional structures, tools and performance measures. </p><p><a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/flat-hierarchies-just-another-step-wrong-direction-niels-pflaeging">Flatter hierarchies: Just another step in the wrong direction</a>: an article that I came across recently, illustrates the challenge you face perfectly. It effectively highlights “flatter hierarchies” – the strategic objective of so many organisations today – as an oxymoron, depicting them as a relic of the Industrial Age and therefore passé, and describes the need for “inside out” value creation. Unfortunately, however, it also identifies “decentralization” as the solution. This shows how hard it is to move from old ideas and why management change seems more evolutionary than we would like to think. It raises the possible spectres of:</p><ul><li>Perpetuating the historic centralization/decentralization cycle that provides so much work for management consultants; and </li><li>Leaving the door open for restoring hierarchy in the future. </li></ul><p>The author makes a valid point when he says, <i>“Value creation from the inside-out and towards the market is a key principle for any kind of organization.”</i> This implies the constant interaction between “the outside” or external environment, and “the inside” with the latter responding readily, rapidly and reasonably to the intelligence it receives. For me that is effectively a call for a more organic approach to management, rather than the mechanical one that underpins hierarchy and remains the lasting legacy of the industrial age. I just wish the author had identified it in this way rather than reactionary “decentralization.”</p><p>An organic approach demands:</p><ul><li>A clear sense of purpose;</li><li>A clear understanding of the operational values;</li><li>The autonomy to act independently in response to “non-standard” or unexpected situations.</li></ul><p>Apart from anything else, that is the only way to ensure the organisation is not side-swiped by change and is able to identify, adapt and respond to changing needs, demands or circumstances. </p><p>This effectively entails remembering Andrew Carnegie’s words, “<i>The only irreplaceable capital an organization possesses is the knowledge and ability of its people. The productivity of that capital depends on how effectively people share their competence with those who can use it.”</i> (I don’t know when he said that, but the fact he died 98 years ago shows how slow the pace of management evolution has been.) Understanding this is to recognise that every individual matters, and is the key to ensuring a sustainable and successful organisation. It will not only ensure you evolve but accelerate the process and secure your place at the top of the food chain.</p></div>The New Case for Building a Better Business Modelhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/the-new-case-for-building-a-better-business-model2016-11-17T10:28:03.000Z2016-11-17T10:28:03.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217101?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>You couldn’t have made it up! In a world where the excesses of business have fuelled strong – sometimes violent – protests against capitalism and corporate malfeasance, Donald Trump won the US election because he was perceived as a businessman! Despite the onslaught of attacks on his personal character and his suitability for the role, he became the first man in history to become US President without any military or political experience whatsoever, because of his business credentials and the hope that this would enable him to bring about change.</p><p>This is like giving your most vociferous, disgruntled customer, who knows nothing about the ins and outs of your operations, control over your entire organisation, albeit on a far grander scale. You can imagine how concerned your other stakeholders would be if you were to do that. So it is hardly surprising that Trump’s election is causing consternation and creating a backlash. Inevitably people are taking stock of the implications and wondering how it is going to affect them.</p><p>Yet, in all the post-election reflection, there is one aspect that does not appear to have been considered in any great depth. And it is one that, perhaps, warrants the greatest thought: “What are the implications for business?” Without any doubt they are significant.</p><p><img class="mce-pagebreak"/>Voting for a businessman is a tacit recognition of the significant role of business in the economy. As such, it makes sense. But, for those concerned about the political and economic clout of big business, it is tantamount to putting the poacher in charge of the game, and means, metaphorically, holding their noses to do so. As such it is an indication of how extremely disgruntled they are. Consequently, if changes aren’t forthcoming, or if there is no improvement in living standards, the next step may well be revolution. That would be bad for business and puts pressure on business to change – and quickly.</p><p>Unfortunately, Trump’s record as a businessman does not show him to be an innovator. Nor did his campaign do anything to suggest otherwise. Thus, miraculous though powers of persuasion seem to be, he is unlikely, even as President, to affect the necessary changes to avoid revolution. We are already close, with the protests, strikes and riots that are proliferating around the world. It therefore seems clear that business itself needs to step up to the plate urgently, take the lead and change its modus operandi.</p><p>Of course this is not a new cry. Leading thinkers like <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.garyhamel.com/author" target="_blank" title="Gary Hamel Leading Business Thinker">Gary Hamel</a> have been calling for a new approach to business for the past couple of decades. Yet there seems to have been remarkably little progress. Now, however, it is becoming urgent and self-interest demands it.</p><p>Fortunately, despite everything, it isn’t really as difficult as it seems. Ultimately, it boils down to recognising the humanity of people and the role they play in organisations. When organisations accept that ‘Every Individual Matters’ they will emancipate, empower and engage their employees more; creating a happier, more productive workplace with an environment that meets both the individual’s and the organisation’s needs and shapes a better society.</p><p>But it all begins with you recognising that ‘Every Individual Matters.’</p></div>The Great Training Robberyhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/the-great-training-robbery2016-10-20T11:25:55.000Z2016-10-20T11:25:55.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217061?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>Much as I would like to take credit for (what I think is) a catchy headline, it is actually inspired by an October 2016 Harvard Business Review article: “<a rel="nofollow" href="https://hbr.org/2016/10/why-leadership-training-fails-and-what-to-do-about-it" target="_blank" title="Why Leadership Training Fails – and What to Do About It.">Why Leadership Training Fails – and What to Do About It.</a>” The article justifies the phrase by saying that, globally, companies spent $356 billion on employee training and education in 2015 but are not getting a good return on their investment, as <em>“learning doesn’t lead to better organizational performance, because people soon revert to their old way of doing things.”</em> If you contributed to that global figure, I suspect you already know that! </p><p>Nevertheless, the “What to do about it” aspect makes the article worth reading. Beware, however, the “leadership training” focus. Its undoubted relevance to leaders ensures it inevitably applies to all organizational training. But any narrower focus is limiting. As it is, I think it perhaps constrained the writers and led them to omit points that would increase the return on <em>all</em> training investment. Let me share some. </p><p><img class="mce-pagebreak" alt=""/>Training is very like communication. To communicate effectively you not only have to express what you <em>intend</em> but you have to ensure the recipient <em>understands</em> what you intended. Any misunderstanding is always the result of poor communication. So too with training. First there is a requirement and then there is the result. And, as with communication, you determine effectiveness by the outcome. Generally, the major difference between the two is that, whereas the outcome of effective communication is likely to be a once only thing, for training it is expected to be ongoing and/or permanent.</p><p>Of course this is well recognized in education and identified by the distinction between <em>training</em> (the delivery of the requirement) and <em>learning</em> (the embedding of the training to the point that it becomes natural.) Often this can be even more simplistically, and narrowly, identified as theory and practice. Yet, the HBR article, and likely your own experience, point to a chasm between the two. So how do we bridge this?</p><p>For me, it starts with the common element of both: intention. You cannot identify the requirement for training without an objective. Thus for effective training you must have a clear intention, while for effective learning your people also need to have a clear intention. So, to instigate learning, you need to be sure that intentions are aligned. That is considerably easier said than done!</p><p>The article identifies two major shortcomings.</p><ol><li>Failure to recognize the organization as a system of interacting elements;</li><li>Impossibility of confronting senior leaders with their own deficiencies.</li></ol><p>Clearly these <em>are</em> leadership issues. Nevertheless, before you dive into the 6 barriers to change, or “silent killers”, that the writers identify, or the solutions they provide, you ought to think about these two more deeply. No-one can effectively deliver a strategy if they fail to understand <em>and</em> get to grips with those points.</p><p>Firstly, understanding the organization as a system of interacting elements, means moving beyond the traditional hierarchical view of the organization and looking at the interactions, inter-dependencies and relationships throughout. Too often change, particularly at senior management level, is motivated by either what you have achieved elsewhere or a need to impress; something done by either trying to have an immediate impact or being seen to be doing something different. One change by each member of the C suite may result in several changes for people further down the hierarchy. You have little or no right to demand change unless you know what the impact on your people is going to be. Here is a (non-exhaustive) list of barriers to learning that the individual might be facing in order to learn. </p><p><a rel="nofollow" class="asset-img-link" href="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c8a5055d970b-pi"><img class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c8a5055d970b image-full img-responsive align-center" title="Barriers to personal change" src="http://blog.zealise.com/.a/6a00e54ee26aa1883301b7c8a5055d970b-800wi" alt="Barriers to personal change" border="0"/></a></p><p>Of course you face the same potential barriers yourself, but you are self-evidently not a good learner if you are not even open to your deficiencies. That makes trust impossible. It also reduces your right to ask others to accept theirs. You cannot then expect to engender successful change.</p><p>Effective learning only happens when it is relevant and necessary. People also learn at different rates; some take longer than others. Consequently trying to effect change through scheduled organization-wide training programmes is to load the deck against you. It is yet another by-product of hierarchical management and further justification for moving toward an organic, self-organizing structure.</p><p>Long familiar with the term “lifelong learning” I was recently introduced to the term “through-life learning.” For me this not only implies learning for the duration of your life, but also learning when you need it. This suggests a kind of “just-in-time” approach to training and I would ask, “Why not?” If you operate on a just in time basis for everything else, surely it applies just as effectively to training and is more likely to ensure the learning takes hold. This will do wonders for your return on training investment. It does, however require that you recognize that ‘Every Individual Matters.’</p></div>How The People Paradox Negates Employee Engagement Effortshttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/how-the-people-paradox-negates-employee-engagement-efforts2016-09-22T11:27:42.000Z2016-09-22T11:27:42.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217028?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=395"></div><div><p>Have you ever heard of The People Paradox? I hadn’t either, although I was well aware of Lord Acton’s famous quote that, “<em>Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.</em>” Well, apparently that’s not just a bon mot: power does corrupt. Certainly according to research cited in the HBR.</p><p>In an October 2016 HBR article entitled <a rel="nofollow" href="https://hbr.org/2016/10/dont-let-power-corrupt-you%E2%80%A6" target="_blank">Don’t Let Power Corrupt You</a> Dacher Kilter describes how twenty years of research has shown him how, in all types of work environments, <em>“people rise on the basis of their good qualities, but their behaviour grows increasingly worse as they move up the ladder.</em>” That's 'The People Paradox.' I am sure you can think of instances in your own experience that support this. I still haven’t forgotten the CEO who completely ignored me when I was introduced to him by my Vice-President manager and added insult to injury by proceeding to question him about me as if I wasn’t there!</p><p>The fact that such behaviour seems objectionable makes the paradox credible. And, arguably, underpins the thinking behind employee engagement efforts. Yet, objectionable though it seems, one has to question why such “bad” behaviour is so pervasive and widespread. Is it possible that this behaviour is “built-into” our DNA as social animals? After all, it is not unique to humans: the consequences for any creature that strays from the clear pecking order of its group can be swift and severe. The fact is, any sort of community almost invariably necessitates some kind of hierarchy. And the hierarchy needs to be sustained.</p><p>The consequences of this are profound, because it would mean that the “paradox” is not in fact a paradox. Rather it is an entirely natural phenomenon, which means that this “corruption” is in fact anything but. This, in turn, makes it a lot harder to eliminate than one might envisage, and may well explain why, despite all the efforts to improve employee engagement, the results seem to be negligible.</p><p>Good as the remedies identified in <a rel="nofollow" href="https://hbr.org/2016/10/dont-let-power-corrupt-you%E2%80%A6" target="_blank">the article</a> may seem, because they appear to be looking at the problem the wrong way, they are highly unlikely to provide any meaningful, lasting solution. Finding this necessitates:</p><ol start="1"><li>Establishing whether this “corruption” is really a problem; and – if it is:</li><li>Finding a way to rewire our thinking to change our patterns of behaviour.</li></ol><p>On the face of it, the idea that power has a corrupting effect, suggests there is a problem. This is endorsed by the article’s remedies, which indicate that more considerate behaviour elicits improved performance and more positive results. And, if that is not enough, the prevalence of efforts to build employee engagement point to a widespread acknowledgement that all is not well.</p><p>If, however, the behaviour is innate, the remedy becomes more of a challenge, as the general failure of efforts to increase employee engagement substantiates. You need to ask yourself. “How do I address this and avoid the prevailing mistakes? Will the benefits justify the effort?” It’s your decision but one thing is for sure: if this behaviour is replicated at every level in your organisation, the potential benefits will be enormous, making the effort highly desirable. </p><p>The good news is that achieving those benefits does not have to be proportionally enormous. If the “corrupted” behaviour <em>is</em> hard-wired due to the need to survive in hierarchies, the best way to re-programme our thinking has to be to eliminate hierarchy in our organisations. Effectively this means shifting from an organisational structure to an organic structure. This makes the organisation more responsive, more adaptable and more change efficient. There are organisations that have done this and achieved – and sustained – significant success as a result. What's stopping you becoming one? </p></div>Personal Transition through Changehttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/personal-transition-through-change2016-06-15T10:54:29.000Z2016-06-15T10:54:29.000ZRobin Hillshttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/RobinHills<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216928?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p>Organisations don't just change because of new systems, processes or structures. They change because the people within the organisation adapt and change too.  Only when the people within it have made their own personal transitions can an organisation truly reap the benefits of change.</p>
<p>The <em>Personal Transition through Change</em> curve is widely used in business and change management.   This tool is extensively used in all sizes of organisations across the world to understand the emotional pathway that people go through when they experience any change.</p>
<p><strong>John M. Fisher</strong> is the Chartered Psychologist who researched and developed the <em>Personal Transition through Change</em> curve.  He presented at the Tenth International Personal Construct Congress, Berlin, 1999, and subsequently developed in his work on constructivist theory in relation to service provision organisations at Leicester University, England.</p>
<p>See if you can relate to these steps:</p>
<p><b><em>Anxiety</em></b> – You don’t really know what’s going to happen next, and you aren’t sure what any change will really look like at this point.</p>
<p><b><em>Happiness</em></b> – You’ve committed to the change, and you are feeling really good about it.</p>
<p><b><em>Anger </em></b>– Some anger and frustration is directed at others, especially those who you believe are responsible for forcing the change.  At a later stage, this is directed at yourself with feelings of guilt for not having coped as well as you believe you could have.</p>
<p><b><em>Despair</em></b> – You may feel confused and apathetic and really start to wonder who you are.</p>
<p>Other pathways on the curve are:</p>
<p><strong><em>Denial </em></strong>- where you deny that any change is occurring at all</p>
<p><b><em>Disillusionment</em>  </b>- where you decide that the change does not fit with your value system and you decide to have nothing more to do with it.</p>
<p><b><em>Hostility</em></b> - where you show aggression towards yourself and others and the change, in general.</p>
<p>John explains how he came to develop the change curve and how he uses it in his work in an exclusive Ei4Change podcast.  You can listen to the full podcast through iTunes or on the <a href="http://ei4change.com/personal-transition-change/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Ei4Change website</a>.</p>
<p>Copies of the <em>Personal Transition through Change</em> curve can be downloaded free of charge, along with other free resources on the <a href="http://ei4change.com/resources/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Ei4Change Resources</a> page.</p>
</div>Evolution, Not Revolution, Powers Innovation and Changehttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/evolution-not-revolution-powers-innovation-and-change2016-05-05T08:49:13.000Z2016-05-05T08:49:13.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216991?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p><span><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357775?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357775?profile=original" width="347" class="align-right"></a>Having long championed the idea of organisations as organisms – as living entities rather than as machines – I have lately become increasingly aware that this is the key to eliminating hierarchy and burying command and control. It also demands a fresh approach to change and is essential for the innovation so vital for commercial – and economic – success. Because organisms only change through evolutionary process.</span></p>
<p><span>In fact, if you accept revolutionary change to be any non-evolutionary change, historically, most effective change has happened through evolution rather than revolution. Even the agricultural and industrial revolutions were more evolutionary changes than revolutionary. Most revolutions that can be identified as occurring at a specific time – e.g. the French and Russian Revolutions – could be said to be revolts against a very unsatisfactory status quo rather than specific efforts to introduce pre-designed, and tested, new models. </span></p>
<p><span>Consequently it seems logical that embracing change as an evolutionary process will enhance change management initiatives and help any organisation survive and thrive in our fast-changing world. It is, therefore, encouraging to find so many others are thinking along the same lines. But HR will need to step up to the plate.</span></p>
<p><span>The words of economist Eric D Beinhocker are particularly pertinent at a time when innovation is becoming a key strategic objective<i>; “Evolution is an algorithm; it is an all-purpose formula for innovation … that, through its special brand of trial and error, creates new designs and solves difficult problems.”</i> More than that, though, he also calls for its application in business; <i>“The key to doing better is to ‘bring evolution inside’ and get the wheels of differentiation, selection and amplification spinning within a company’s four walls.”</i> ‘Bringing evolution inside’ certainly implies the need for a new business paradigm. </span></p>
<p><span>This is something long advocated by management guru Gary Hamel, who makes the point that, <i>“The most powerful managers are the ones furthest from the frontline realities. All too often decisions made on an Olympian peak prove to be unworkable on the ground.”</i> You could say that is a statement of the obvious, yet organisations of all sizes and descriptions persist in pursuing such revolutionary change – change initiatives and re-engineering programmes intended to bring about organisational change. And keep employees and consultants alike busy investigating why over 70% of them fail!</span></p>
<p><span>That is not all either. In pursuing these efforts, managers also ignore their leadership role and fail to recognise their effect on their employees. Those ‘frontline’ people who are facing the day to day realities end up doubly frustrated, because they know what the correct action ought to have been but have to spend their time, effort and energy on the wrong thing. And HR then spends further resources trying to repair employee engagement! HR can spare itself a huge amount of effort if it focuses on this more pre-emptive process.</span></p>
<p><span>In organisms, each and every cell, both individually and as part of a larger organ, is a self-managing entity. This, with the concomitant capability to respond, adapt and change, is what enables the whole organism to survive and thrive. Every cell matters. It therefore seems abundantly clear that, for organisations to become more organic, the people need to be seen as cells and to be self-managing. The minute any individual becomes frustrated due to problems carrying out their work and the inability to address such problems, the effectiveness of the organisation itself is impaired. This inevitably has a compounding effect, inhibiting organisational performance even further.</span></p>
<p><span>Every individual matters.</span></p></div>Avoid the Dangers of WIIFMhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/avoid-the-dangers-of-wiifm2016-02-18T12:08:21.000Z2016-02-18T12:08:21.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216780?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357733?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357733?profile=original" width="299" class="align-left"></a>Virtually unheard of ten years ago, WIIFM – the acronym for What’s In It For Me – has become a surprisingly popular term in business. Originally coined to focus marketing efforts on customer needs, it has become a key concept in change management and HR. Here, however, it is a double-edged sword and needs to be invoked with care.</p>
<p>On the positive side, WIIFM recognises the individual and looks to address personal needs and expectations. A shift away from traditional command and control thinking, with its philosophy that the employee is simply a resource required to do what they are told, this is clearly progress. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, it also has three inherent dangers that are not widely recognised.</p>
<ol>
<li>WIIFM fails to recognise “The Human Paradox.” It only addresses the “selfish” drivers taking no account whatsoever of the “selfless,” or altruistic, drivers stemming from a sense of belonging and/or a common purpose; the things that give us the most satisfaction.</li>
<li>A tendency to consider WIIFM as a means to motivate. This, more often than not, leads down the traditional path of looking at extrinsic, rather than intrinsic, motivators. In turn this, almost inevitably, results in focusing on incentives, which invariably end up as financial incentives or initiatives to improve working conditions. While these may work initially, they ultimately act as little more than a bribe and, as you well know, have very little long-term effect.</li>
<li>Despite its name, WIIFM is all too often a universal approach that fails to address the individual’s needs. This is almost unavoidable and is simply the result of the macro-management of employees and hence the abstraction that I described previously.</li>
</ol>
<p>Even without recognising these, WIIFM is, at best, only a partial solution. While it appears to address the individual’s interests, the intention (and certainly the perceived intention) behind it remains either or both to:</p>
<ul>
<li>Get the person to do what you want/need them to do;</li>
<li>Improve productivity.</li>
</ul>
<p>Thus the “me” is always coloured by what is best for you or the organisation. Consequently it isn’t quite the shift away from the traditional approach that it first seems. Until it achieves that it will never deliver the full benefits that you expect.</p>
<p>True WIIFM actually needs to go much deeper. It lies in recognising that the individual is actually investing their life, or a significant portion of it, in your organisation. When you recognise this you move beyond seeing people as resources “filling a role” and you lay the foundation for a reciprocal perception of a role as more than a “job.” You are now both working from a standpoint of career development; something that creates a more effective, mutually beneficial partnership.</p>
<p>Only when you achieve this will you be able to avoid the incipient dangers of current WIIFM approaches and begin to meet the intrinsic motivators of each and every employee. You will create a greater sense of belonging and common purpose that will also help you to address the currently missing ‘selfless’ motivators. And you can further strengthen this with my ‘Every Individual Matters Model’ which specifically addresses the ‘selfless’ drivers and provides a catalyst for achieving something way beyond what current WIIFM efforts offer. </p></div>Restructuring administrative function of the Charityhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/restructuring-administrative-function-of-the-charity2015-02-14T14:15:53.000Z2015-02-14T14:15:53.000ZIan Daltonhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/IanDalton<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216438?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p><span class="font-size-2">As an impact of the current economic climate we are currently seeing a huge change in the way we are funded through local government grants and collaborative partnership working and have to look at streamlining the administrative function we provide to run the charity. We need to reduce our fixed costs so over the next 3 months there are a number of things we need to achieve: </span></p>
<ul>
<li><span class="font-size-2"><strong>Reorganisation of staffing / workload</strong> - We function currently on 2 full time employees including myself as Operational Manager and a Centre Director plus 6 part time employees</span></li>
<li><span class="font-size-2"><strong>Up-skilling the current team</strong> - as an essential requirement to become multi-skilled </span></li>
<li><span class="font-size-2"><strong>Contractual changes</strong> - In hours or redundancy "do individuals have the ability to do more?" </span></li>
<li><span class="font-size-2"><strong>Increase workloads</strong> - Redistribution of workload / working smarter not harder</span></li>
<li><span class="font-size-2"><strong>Location changes within the office with little cost</strong> - Implications that this could demotivate employees and minimising these risks</span></li>
<li><strong>Remaining positive -</strong> Providing a full service to our Counsellors and Stakeholder "Business as usual"</li>
</ul>
<p><span class="font-size-2">This all has to be completed in a very short space of time as well as keeping the team motivated which can always be a struggle anyway. It is going to be a huge challenge, but once completed I am sure we will see benefits across the organisation. </span></p>
<p>Watch this space! </p>
<p>Ian</p>
</div>All Change!https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/all-change2014-04-02T08:33:33.000Z2014-04-02T08:33:33.000ZMelanie Jameshttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/MelanieJames<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2216162?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=400"></div><div><p><b>Change brings Opportunity</b></p>
<p> </p>
<p>With a history of success, why would a business want or need to change?  The simple answer:</p>
<p>All organizations, no matter how large or small, need to change:</p>
<ul>
<li>To keep ahead of the competition</li>
<li>To stay fresh and open to new ideas and opportunities and</li>
<li>To continue along the path of success for the benefit of the business, its customers and its employees.</li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Change affects organizations in many ways:</b></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Change forces organizations to audit their internal competence and ensure that they are recruiting the right skills sets and re-training existing staff.  This is paramount in enabling the organization to move forward with the development of the company, ensuring that in so doing, they do not hinder the career path opportunities of employees.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Change is also necessary when considering the competition.  It is sure that the competition will be striving to “tip the balance” of success of your business and we must take all necessary steps to ensure that this does not happen.  We must not become complacent and rely upon a good reputation to support our continued growth and position within the industry.  Strategy and objectives have to adapt to accommodate any significant change.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Change Management usually refers to the “people” aspect of the change model.  The model will be determined by whether the change is planned or emergent (planned being something we have thought through and emergent being something that is thrust upon us and comes out of “left field”!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Many change models exist with different approaches and methods.  All have to have “bolted” on to them project management, training, leadership and organization.  However, all have a common intention and conclusion: that of “successful change”.  Organizations are different, so their attitude to change will differ, as will the approach they take, so having a variety of models is advantageous and businesses can then adapt models to suit their individual requirements.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Behavioural Responses when Change Occurs</b></p>
<p> </p>
<p>There are a number of behavioural responses that will be seen when change occurs in an organization.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>We very often go into a state of denial when we meet with a situation that is not welcome, when we cannot cope and need to shut down.  This can take the form of “we don’t need to change, we have always done it this way”.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The road to fear may well follow.  This fear might be fuelled by someone telling you “you are going to lose your job”  or “you will be expected to learn something new”.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If business is successful with its road map, acceptance and ultimately commitment should be the end result and, whilst it may be an uphill struggle during the process, will ultimately lead to a better environment and work/life balance for everyone who has survived the change process(*Ray, November 2004).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What is HR’s role in change management?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>HR professionals usually know their staff better than other management representatives and they can see the bigger picture because they are not part of just “one” team or department within the industry.  HR has a huge responsibility in any large scale change process, for the staff and their wellbeing.  HR must concentrate their efforts in line with the change management process to support, train and encourage all involved.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Some of the main areas where HR can support individuals involved is to:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Communicate</b> the change process early (initial steps) and discuss concerns/issues with all staff affected by the change.  Be positive about the change so that you demonstrate commitment and encourage the success of the change process.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Organize</b> training and re-training for staff affected and prepare managers to understand why the change is necessary, what the business expects of him/her and explain the outputs that will be apparent when the change has been expedited.</p>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p><b>Share</b> early wins with everyone to show how the change process is moving forward positively and to continue to get “buy in” from staff and stakeholders alike.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><b>Conclusion:</b></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Embrace change, identify it as a constant, keep ahead of the curve, audit internal competencies, communicate, train and share success. </p>
<p> </p>
</div>I heard a song on the radio today...https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/i-heard-a-song-on-the-radio-today2013-10-30T21:14:50.000Z2013-10-30T21:14:50.000ZSteve Davishttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/SteveDavis<div><p>My drive to work is a pleasant enough 35 minute drive through the Dorset countryside. I rather enjoy it - it gives me time to shift into/out of work mode, and there are always deer, buzzards, egret and the like to make it all the more interesting.</p><p>Today though, was a little different. Today I had the radio on and they played a Michael Jackson song. In particular they played 'Man in the Mirror'.</p><p>I've heard the song plenty of times - yes, I still have the CD that I bought a fair few years ago (more years than I care to think of!). Today though, I listened to the song. Really listened..</p><p>The line that kept popping up and making me take notice goes like this:</p><p><em>"If you wanna make the World a better place, just take a look at yourself - and make that change."</em></p><p>Not just that line, there are plenty of lines throughout the song that talk about Change, and how it starts with me/you/one person. All rather deep stuff perhaps, but it struck a chord (no pun intended!) with me.</p><p>I'm on the Level 5 HRM programme, and two modules in.. It is evident already, that there will be changes that will be coming to my HRM function as a result. Guess who will be making the first change? That's right. Me!</p><p>If you haven't heard the song before - or maybe haven't listened to it. here it is. Check out those Lyrics!</p><p>Steve</p><p> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/P5vz6iwV38U?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe></p></div>