What are the main ingredients for a successful change in a company?

Kevin,
I have been a pretty successful change agent for over 30 years now and I have found some common elements where the change was sustainable or "successful"
- Successful change is about relationships and people, not about technology and systems. Technology and other "systems" impede can or assist in the change process, but not sustain it. You need to create personal relevance.
- Sustainable change is about commitment not compliance. To paraphrase Rosabeth Moss Kantor- "change is an opportunity when done with me, but a threat when done to me". As a corollary to the first point congruency is a huge element of successful change. If you are asking me to make changes that are or appear to me to be incongruent with any of the five key congruencies it will be an uphill battle to sustain it.
- Change is an implicit rather than an explicit process. We try to use typically rational or intellectual models to create change. logic and reasoning is great, but people "live" at the visceral level. Identifying where there are "blockages" for people and retraining them using implicit models versus explicit model are much more successful.
I do agree with Linda that leadership must be first to change and consistent in their behavior not just their dialogue. Talk is cheap.
If you are interested in more on compliance to commitment or congruency take a look at my website at www.newparadigmsllc.com for more on implicit versus explicit memory and learning vist the site of my brilliant colleague Reut Schwartz Hebron at www.keychangenow.com

Sometimes the problem with change management being adopted is that is that it is done for its own sake or because it looks good to others. Oftentimes the leaders of these efforts make changes in a company to fit some preconceived model rather than having actually analyzed what changes might be appropriate to a company whether it be reorganization, changes to the company culture to allow innovation or certain sectors that have problems that need to be addressed.

More people are likely to adopt the change if they can actually see value in the changes whether they are slow or fast adopters. It can be worthwhile to listen to those who resist the change because they may have a different perspective that can bring new insight into the changes being made. However, if they are simply refusing to change or are being disruptive about it, then the situation may require more drastic measures such as shifting them to another area, changing their responsibilities, performance counseling or even termination. In some cases, the employee may fear that they won't be able to learn new things, their power base or influence is being eroded or that the changes are only ways to get rid of them. Good leaders in change management recognize that fears often manifest themselves in non-cooperation and are ready and able to address them as a group or individually.

first and foremost: the willingness to change

The most fundamental and primary emotion that makes any individual desire to be in any place is fun. And what is more fun than winning? Well, winning as a team. Winning as a team creates a support dynamic second to none, and that feels really good to team members.

The team, then, must see change as opportunity to win.

Mark's comment is spot-on in that change is a relationship function. If I am going to hang my ass on a ledge and risk change, I want to know that my leadership will, in fact, support the result of the change they are leading me to make, and that the team I serve on is all moving the same direction so the change has promise of success.

Like many dynamics in a company, the existing health of your team as a whole will directly determine the success (or failure) of change. To a truly healthy performance team, change IS fun, and may even be viewed as essential by the team.

Together, lets put the fun back into work!
Belldon Colme
belldoncolme@gmail.com

goal-oriented change management model that allows change management teams to focus their activities on specific business results. The model was initially used as a tool for determining if change management activities like communications and training were having the desired results during organizational change. The model has its origins in aligning traditional change management activities to a given result or goal.

In every case that I have been involved in where the company successfully "changed," the leader (President, Owner, CEO) changed first. In a recent client organization, the President told his leadership after a day-long retreat, "I can now see that I get in the way. I get involved rather than let you do your jobs. I intervene, allow end-runs, and second guess your decisions rather than let you own it. I do not tolerate mistakes when the fact is, some may need to be made in order for us to learn as a leadership team." It was astounding. But at the same time "the shift" was felt. I am certain that leadership group had a new thought - "uh oh, we've been complaining that the leader gets in the way and now, he's changed, and it's on us." I am happy to report - so far, so good!

One key element is that the company must recognize that it *needs* to change before some external factor (e.g., board of directors, SEC or FTC inquiry, shareholder revolt) *causes* it to change. Proactive change is much easier to manage in my view. But, an important aspect of proactive change is inclusion. Even proactive change can go bad if it's simply a top-down approach. Participation by the broad community of stakeholders, executives, managers and individual contributors usually produces more favorable outcomes, whether the plan (and subsequent execution) is proactive or reactive.