The first tutorial (Part 1) introduced the ADKAR model as illustrated
in Figure 1. Part 2 presented an approach for
creating awareness of the need for change. Awareness is the first
step in the ADKAR model. Part 3 presented
methods that managers can use to build desire and motivate employees to
support a change. This tutorial, Part 4, discusses the role of knowledge
in the change process.
Figure 1 - ADKAR Model mapped to enablers and management activities
A case study - a school superintendent in the hot seat
In this case study, knowledge was manipulated and withheld from key
stakeholders during a time of fiscal crisis. That failure, not the change itself, created
animosity, distrust and extreme resistance.
The Department of Education audited a local school district and found that
several schools did not comply with the required instructional time (total student hours)
for the school year. The initial penalty for the school district was a projected $5M in
state funding which they would be forced to return for non-compliance. The superintendent
for this school district was instructed by the school board to take whatever steps were
necessary to correct this problem and ensure that each school was in compliance in the
future.
In this school district, site-based decision-making was in place for each
school. In this process, each school has local control and ownership for many school
processes and decisions, including decisions related to the schedule. Because the process
of complying with the state requirements demanded dramatic change quickly, the
superintendent elected to bypass the site-based decision-making process and invoke an
emergency provision that allowed this problem to be resolved at a district level. Not only
did the district staff elect to bypass the site-based decision process, they also decided
to minimize communications during the process until the solution was fully developed.
Their argument for withholding knowledge about the options and resulting
schedule changes was something that all of us may be able to relate to as managers --
there were too many unknowns and things kept changing. Moreover, the process was happening
very quickly. In fact, every time the district staff met with the state auditors, they
were told about additional requirements or changes that needed to be made.
Back at the schools, the process did not appear to be moving quickly. In
fact, quite the opposite. The only communication that parents and teachers received was
that the schedule would change from a block system to a standard 6-period schedule to meet
state requirements effective the next school year. For parents and students who learned
about this decision only eight weeks before the end of the term, the impact was surprise
and shock. Many did not know what that might mean for their students who would be seniors
the following year (would they meet their graduation requirements?). Some assumed that the
courses they needed may not be available under the new schedule. They became worried and
anxious about the process.
Weeks went by and no new information was released from the district staff.
The teachers decided to take action and began to protest. Some did not want the additional
time requirements to change the schedule structure (from 90-minute blocks to traditional
50-minute classes). Teachers began to organize against the change. Parents and teachers
met to discuss the impacts of this decision. Angry parents vented their frustration at the
overall process and lack of communication. Students presented their concerns and
apprehensions about the change, some in tears over the potential impact on their final
year in high school and plans for college.
During this time, the district staff and the superintendent remained
quiet, busily working on what they believed to be the best solution for each school. The
longer they withheld knowledge about the change, the greater the unrest became. In this
vacuum of knowledge, a teachers' group filed a formal appeal to the school board. A local
advisory committee within the school prepared a list of ten questions and demanded a
face-to-face meeting with the superintendent.
Parents, teachers and students were fed up. Through the grapevine, they
now understood that the decision was final -- a "done deal." This made some even
more upset. It was time to confront the person in charge and find out what was going on.
The superintendent finally agreed to attend a parent-teacher meeting. The date was set.
The meeting began amicably, but body language within the group foretold of
the unrest that was soon to surface. The superintendent began with an introductory
statement and answered a few questions. These initial comments dealt with why the change
was required, but most in attendance already knew about the state compliance issues. Since
the school's accreditation was potentially at risk, awareness of the need for change and a
desire to change were evident in all parties. The issue was knowledge about the change and
the lack of communication about the proposed solution.
It did not take long for the questions to become more heated.
"Why were the parents and teachers excluded from the process of
creating a solution to this problem?"
"Why was information withheld about the proposed schedule
change?"
"What options were considered, and why were these options not shared
with us?"
"Why did you not share key decisions when they were made?"
"Now that the crisis is over, can the site-based decision team have
input on the schedule structure for the following year?"
This final question, when answered "no," resulted in one teacher
leaving the meeting early, simply stating that "My further input is not required or
wanted on this topic." The superintendent was in the hot seat, trying to justify why
knowledge was withheld and why participation was not solicited. His defense was simple.
"We created the best possible answer to the problem in the time we had
available." His defense was based on the correctness of the solution, not the process
in which the solution was developed. The superintendent's decision to withhold knowledge,
even when circumstances were chaotic and rushed, had unforeseen consequences.
Knowledge is power. The absence of knowledge creates uncertainly and fear.
In taking steps to resolve a crisis, the superintendent ignored one of the most
fundamental stages for managing change - the creation of knowledge. By withholding
knowledge, he was withholding power. This upset and insulted teachers and parents in the
site-based decision making teams. For students, withholding knowledge created stress and
fear of the unknown. What will happen to my plans for school next year? How will this
impact my college applications? The results were devastating to students, parents and for
some teachers. The reputation of the district in the eyes of parents and teachers was
affected.
In this case study, it turns out that teachers and parents were accepting
of the 11th hour solution created by the district. They understood the reason the change
was needed and had a desire to support the change. The breakdown occurred in how knowledge
was manipulated and withheld from key stakeholders during a time of fiscal crisis. That
failure, not the actual decision or solution, created animosity, distrust and an overall
lack of confidence. It was not the failure to design a solution to the problem, but rather
the lack of change management that crippled this change.
The role of knowledge
Knowledge is the third goal in the ADKAR model.
Once awareness and desire are achieved, knowledge is the next step to enable change.
Knowledge refers to the learning process which includes learning about the change and
information about how to change.
Employees need to know what the future state will look like. This goes
beyond the high level descriptions that may have been provided early on during the change
process. Employees need to understand what will be different and what will stay the same.
What are the new business processes? What are the new procedures? How will jobs change and
what skills are needed to achieve these new jobs? What new systems will be in place? In
the absence of decisions about the change, employees should be told when more information
will be known or when key decisions will be made. Don't allow a vacuum of knowledge to be
filled with rumor and mis-information.
Creating knowledge
Knowledge can be created with employees through
a range of channels from formal training classes to observations and examples. In general,
knowledge can be created through:
In addition to these channels for building knowledge, the type of
information can be separated into:
Knowledge about the future state including the new operating principles,
processes, systems and organization structure or job roles.
Knowledge about the skills, behavior and information that employees will
need in order to operate in the new environment.
Training and education programs
The most common method for building knowledge among employees is through
structured training and education programs. For large changes, these training programs are
often mandatory programs for employees and are part of the overall project implementation.
Training programs could range from web-based online training to formal class-room
training. For small changes, training could include special presentations at normal staff
meetings or simply handouts discussing the change and what employees should do differently
in the future.
Regardless of the training method, the content should include:
A restatement of the business reasons for change and both internal and
external market drivers.
A detailed description of the future state including a discussion about
the new business direction, new business processes, enabling technology and tools, and new
job roles.
Specifics about the skills, knowledge and behaviors that are needed by
employees to support the change.
What to do when the new processes or tools do not work. Many training
programs skip this last topic, and when processes or tools fail, employees revert back to
the old way of doing work. Therefore it is necessary to instruct employees on how to
handle problems during the implementation of the change.
Open and ready access to information
Knowledge is not always "delivered" to employees through
pro-active or required training programs. Many employees learn by accessing the
information that is readily available to them. The more available information is, the more
useful is this channel of learning. In most companies today, this would be electronic
access through intranets, shared file servers or web pages. Ready access could also
include physical access to a project room or project library, or bulletin boards. Another
alternative is kiosks or special work stations that demo new tools or systems.
Information shared through these channels could include:
project schedules and milestones
process flowcharts and descriptions
new tools and software applications
new job descriptions and roles
new floor layouts or building designs
new policies and procedures
Examples and role models
Even after formalized training, knowledge can be transferred through
observation and examples. Role models, for example, can provide other employees with
hands-on demonstrations that are often more meaningful than classroom training. To
facilitate this process, employees that are further along in the learning curve should be
identified as mentors or advisors that others can go to for assistance. Be sure to select
employees that are well-respected by their peers.
Pitfalls to avoid
This tutorial stresses the importance of building knowledge. But, don't
jump the gun or get ahead of yourself. Many managers, in their enthusiasm to deploy a new
change, often skip the first two element of ADKAR and jump
immediately to knowledge. In other words, managers skip the awareness and desire
elements of the ADKAR model and think that change begins with training employees. The old
adage, "you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink," is
well-suited for this situation. Creating knowledge in employees can only begin when
employees have the desire to learn and are ready to embrace the change. Managers who skip
the first two elements in the ADKAR model often find themselves
repeating the training or finding other ways to educate employees because they were not
ready to pay attention and learn the first time around. Consider for a moment how many
times you as a manager have elected to change how things are done and jumped immediately
to what training or education will be needed by employees. It is a common mis-step to make
this leap because you have already considered the business reasons for the change and have
already made the decision that it is the right thing to do. Do not forget that you are
several steps ahead of employees in the process, and you need to address awareness and
desire before creating knowledge.
***
© 2004 Prosci. All Rights Reserved.
Developing ability to change - Part 5
Email
this page to a friend
|
