Selection of organizational change managers and why they are different

Abstract

Overview

This research paper outlines a process using a work preference assessment to help identify potential organizational change managers. It bridges the gap between the research of Gilbert (2006) and the research of Crawford and Nahmias (2008). This gap was first identified and described in a research paper by Garfein and Sankaran (2011).

Purpose

The objective of this research is to improve the probability of successful outcomes of programs and projects, requiring significant organizational change.

Organization

After the following Prologue, this paper is organized into six sections: (1) Background, (2) Literature Review, (3) Methodology, (4) Data Collected and Analyzed (5) Future Research, and (6) Conclusions.

Major Topics

1. Strategic Portfolio Management Model
2. Strategic Throughput Best Practices
3. Organizational Change Model
4. Identification of Work Preferences
5. Identification of Organizational Change Managers
6. Four Case Studies
7. Future Research and Publications

Outcomes

The use of measures of work preferences at the start of a project will help:

• Identify those who are more likely to serve as change manager (CM), project or program manager (PM), or specific roles as a team member (TM).
• Improve knowledge of the work-related gifts each member is likely to bring to the project.
• Enhance job placement and task assignment decisions
• Facilitate team work by building on the understanding and respect for one another as members of a project team.

Prologue

“Mark, we need to talk,” called out Dr. Paige Richardson, CEO of King County Regional Hospital (KCRH), as she returned to her office from her monthly CEO Roundtable in downtown Seattle. In passing the office of Mark Center, her vice president of human resources, she saw his face light up with curiosity and concern about her obvious excitement and determination.

“Do you know what the Work Preference Indicator is?” She fired out when he arrived in her office right behind her.

“Uh, not specifically,” Mark answered cautiously, “unless it is what it sounds like.”

“And how do you really feel about the KCRH Fully Integrated Information Technology Platform?” asked Dr. Richardson, changing the subject with a focused, direct look at Mark's reaction.

“Frankly,” he declared, with an honesty-or-damned raise to his chin,” from the briefings I've had on how it will change my human resources organization, I'm scared to death – well that's not very professional. Let's just say I'm quite concerned. A couple of members of my staff have told me, only half-jokingly, they plan to retire before the system comes online. I guess they're picking the flight option,” he chuckled, referring to the mutually understood fight-or-flight response in the amygdala, the primitive part of the brain.

The CEO and HR VP of KCRH, with multiple locations around Puget Sound, are referring to the most important strategic objective of KCRH, the successful and timely implementation of a Fully Integrated Information Technology Platform for all locations, and all personnel. Dr. Richardson has been frustrated by the slow progress and frequent setbacks in implementing the comprehensive upgrade to the KCRH information system. The strategy was defined by the executive team and resulted in the creation of several portfolios. Within each of those portfolios, KCRH further elaborated on the programs and projects necessary to achieve the strategy, and assigned their best project and program managers – and even had to hire a number of contract project managers because the task was so great.

“But clinically speaking,” Dr. Richardson continued with a wry grin, “we should have remembered that the prefrontal cortex is where our reasoning occurs and that the stimulus of this IT system change must first go through the amygdala and there's a bit of a lag before it gets to the pre-frontal cortex reasoning section. For a big change, like our major information systems change, the amygdala may still kick back with the “fight or flight?” response for quite a while, telling our people, ‘I really don't feel comfortable with this’. How many of our staff is fighting this change, how many want to take flight, how many will easily and willingly adopt the new system? Some of our team members are uncomfortable with the system upgrade to some degree, and some are almost traumatized by it.”

“And Mark,” she continued, gesturing at his coat and tie, “as a VP, you are not even a big hands-on user of our IT systems, so whether you are ‘scared to death’ or just ‘very concerned,’ depending on how professional you're feeling,” she laughed to show she appreciated his honesty, “you just can imagine the challenge we have with the personnel throughout the entire organization in all our locations.”

“Okay,” Mark grinned, finally understanding where the conversation was going, “so the bottom line is you learned something at the CEO Roundtable you think will help us, right?”

“Right,” Dr. Richardson sighed with relief. “In many cases, what we need is not only a program or project manager, but when and where we are introducing something that will require quite a bit of organizational change, we need someone with change management capability on the team. So here's what I would like you to explore. There is an instrument called a Work Preference Indicator. I'm going to send you a research paper about its use. Please read the paper, take the WPI yourself, and get back to me.”

“Interesting…” Mark mused. “Will do, but then what?” he asked, knowing Dr. Richardson had not yet revealed all of her plan.

“I learned at the CEO Roundtable today that the WPI can sort out good project managers and good organizational change managers, who aren't necessarily the same people,” Dr. Richardson concluded with a smile. “I believe the WPI will be helpful in identifying capable organizational change managers that we can team with our program and project managers. So, if you agree that the WPI is useful after taking it and reading the research paper, I'd like us to introduce the concept to our entire executive team. Then we'll have a better shot at helping our personnel embrace the success of our IT systems change, and achieve it on a timely basis… ‘maximizing our strategic throughput,’” she added, quoting a well-known industry thought leader.

“I'll get back to you as soon as I can,” Mark said with growing excitement. “I have some ideas about my own change management abilities and project management preferences. It'll be interesting to see if the WPI provides any new insights.” As he turned to go back to his office, he started listing out loud, “…and then we get everyone to take the WPI, and then we get to review their capabilities and assignments, and then I get to hire more people for my department, and then…”

Dr. Richardson laughed, and sat down to tackle her messages and emails, knowing that she had just moved the Kitsap County Regional Hospital just a bit further toward achieving their most important strategic objective.

1. Background

The need to proactively address organizational change demonstrated by Dr. Richardson in the prologue is atypical. It is more typically the case that organizations inadequately address the impact of change resulting from project and program implementation.

For more than 30 years, one of the authors (Garfein) has advised a wide range of organizations in project and program management with a focus on strategic portfolio management and expanding strategic throughput. See http://rpmteam.com/rpm_history.html. More than 90% of these engagements required substantial organizational change by some of their stakeholders.

The authors believe this research has the potential to: (1) Identify individuals who are likely to be good at facilitating/leading projects and programs requiring organization change; (2) Raise the awareness at all levels of management of the benefits of actively addressing the organizational change from the earliest stages of project initiation; (3) Maintain flexibly to change course as required to address the organizational impacts as they become known and continue to evolve; and most importantly, (4) Expand strategic throughput, that is maximizing the benefits derived from projects and programs by proactively addressing organizational change.

Strategic Portfolio Management Model

This paper explores organizational change using the strategic portfolio management model shown in Exhibit 1 (Garfein, 2009). In evaluating the best practices (the right side of Exhibit 1), it became clear to the authors that most organizations did not adequately address organizational change, and it was almost always the case that the implementation of strategic initiatives involved significant organizational change. The four parts of the model are briefly described in Exhibit 2.

Exhibit 1 – Strategic Portfolio Management Model (Garfein, 2009).

Exhibit 2 – The four parts of the strategic portfolio management model.

2. Literature Review

This research bridges the gap between the research of Gilbert (2006) and the research of Crawford and Nahmias (2008). This gap was first identified and bridged in a research paper by Garfein and Sankaran (2011). A literature review identified five references as foundational to bridging this gap and they are:

1. Gilbert, G. R. (2006). Work Preference Indicator Instrument.
2. Pellegrinelli, S., & Partington, D. (2006). Pitfalls in taking a project-based view of programmes.
3. Cabanis-Brewin, J., and Pennypacker, J. S. (2006). Best Practices for Aligning Projects to Corporate Strategy.
4. Nahmias, A. H., Crawford, L. (2008). Project Manager or Change Manager? Who Should Be Managing Organizational Change?
5. Garfein, S. J., Sankaran, S. (2011). Work Preferences of Project and Program Managers, Change Managers and Project Team Members: The Importance of Knowing the Difference.

Cabanis-Brewin and Pennypacker surveyed 84 leading companies using identified “best practices” (Cabanis-Brewin & Pennypacker, 2006). Successful application of best practices in organizations where there is significant requirement for change may require both a project manager and an organization change manager (Nahmias & Crawford, 2008).

There may be a meaningful difference between a person's skills and his or her work preferences (a person may be competent at something but prefer not to do it). The Work Preference Indicator (Gilbert, Sohi, & McEachern, 2012) is a scientifically-based instrument that measures an individual's work preferences. Work preferences can be used to help identify individuals who are more likely to be successful as organizational change managers.

There is a high failure rate for organizational change projects, with only 44% of change projects coming close to achieving their goals (Accountancy, 2003). We will outline how we have used the WPI to begin a discussion with project personnel about their work preferences and how these preferences fit with their roles in the project. We will suggest a method for identification of those individuals best suited to lead organizational change programs and projects.

On average, companies achieve only 56% of their intended strategy, leaving 44% unrealized (Cabanis-Brewin & Pennypacker, 2006). See the right side of Exhibit 3, Strategy Executed to Plan.

Exhibit 3 – Best Practices for Aligning Projects to Corporate Strategy. (This chart was adopted from Cabanis-Brewin, J., & Pennypacker, J. S. (2006). It shows results of a survey conducted in November 2005 from a broad spectrum of 87 leading companies.)

A significant expansion in strategic throughput frequently involves organizational change initiatives (Garfein, 2008, 2009). Organizational change initiatives are more difficult to effectively manage than most managers realize (Nahmias & Crawford, 2008). Organizational change causes people to do their jobs in a different way. A number of pitfalls are associated with managing organizational change initiatives using only a project management approach (Pellegrinelli & Partington, 2006). This raises two questions: (1) What is the degree of organizational change required and (2) Who should manage that change—a project manager or change manager? Are there situations where we need both a project manager and a change manager?

Taking a project-based view is often too restrictive. Typically, project managers seek to impose degrees of order, control, stability, and predictability that prove to be pitfalls in initiatives requiring substantial organizational change. A number of pitfalls have been identified that are associated with taking a project-based view as shown in Exhibit 4 (Pellegrinnelli & Parrington, 2006).

Exhibit 4 – Pitfalls associated with taking a project-based view of initiatives requiring substantial organizational change.

3. Methodology

Mixed methods were used in our research. Quantitative results were gathered from a population of 178 participants using the WPI. Qualitative in-depth pilot interviews were conducted with four individuals exhibiting organizational change manager work preferences. The pilot questions were tested through discussion to ensure they provided the required answers. We used mixed methods to triangulate the results.

Future research will include additional qualitative in-depth interviews to validate the survey questions, followed by a large-scale quantitative survey of Project Management Institute members. In summary, quant+qual, followed by qual and then quant.

Supporting data and WPI detail are located in Appendices A–E.

“Project Manager or Change Manager: Who Should Be Managing Change?”

A survey of 134 project professionals from all project sectors across the world confirms high failure rate for organizational change projects, with only 44% of change projects coming close to achieving their goals (Accountancy, 2003). Based on the pitfalls described above (Pellegrinnelli & Parrington, 2008), it is clear there can be potential problems in having project managers, who are promoted to the role of program manager, run organizational change projects (Nahmias & Crawford, 2008).

In practice, the role of change manager has emerged from different disciplinary backgrounds than those of project and program managers. Later in this paper we will describe four individuals who in fact emerged from different backgrounds. To protect their identities and help us follow them through this paper, each has been given a name reflecting what they do. They are the Rainmaker, the Poet, the General Manager, and the Entrepreneur A change manager is responsible for the management of change with a focus on the human side of the change. In practice, this is an emerging role with responsibility for the management of any type of organizational change (Nahmias & Crawford, 2008). Exhibit 5 suggests a process model, wherein a project is just a project if it does not require organizational/behavioral change (see top left-hand box labeled “1. Project”). In this case, a project management focus is appropriate. If, on the other hand, there is a requirement for organizational and behavioral change, the remainder of the model (steps three through eight) comes into play. See Nahmias & Crawford, 2008 for a detailed description of the steps in this model.

Exhibit 5 – Suggested process model for project managers and change managers involvement in organizational change (Nahmias & Crawford, 2008).

Suggested Matrix for Engagement of Project (PM) and/or Change Managers (CM)

Nahmias and Crawford use a two-by-two matrix (Exhibit 6) to portray the dimensions of organizational change: (1) The strength of the supporting culture and leadership, and (2) The degree of behavioral change required. Of particular note is the top right-hand quadrant of the matrix that suggests both, and an organizational change manager and a project/program manager may be required where there is a high degree of behavioral change required in the supporting culture/leadership.

Exhibit 6 – “Suggested Decision Matrix for Engagement of Project Managers and Change Managers” (Nahmias & Crawford).

In the upper right quadrant, a high degree of behavioral change in a weak supportive culture and leadership will require more intensive change management activities, highlighting the need for a designated change manager. At the other end of the spectrum (lower left quadrant), if there is little behavioral change required and there is strong a strongly supportive culture and leadership, then change may be effectively managed by a project manager with some change management skills.

Nahmias and Crawford identified one group of competencies that were shared by program, project, and change managers (Exhibit 7). They also identified competencies that are unique to change managers. Change managers are different. While they may also be effective project and program managers, it is their unique change management competencies that set them apart. The question is, is it possible to identify individuals with these unique organizational change competencies?

Exhibit 7 – Similarities and differences between project manager (PM), program manager (PG), and organizational change manager (CM) competencies. On the right side of this exhibit, characteristics unique to change managers are shown.

Identification of Work Preferences

“The Work Preference Indicator (WPI) is a scientifically-based instrument that measures an individual's job task preferences (Gilbert, 2008, www.Gilbertems.com). See Exhibit 8, WPI mapped to CM, PM, and TM.

Exhibit 8 – The WPI measures an individual's job task preferences. See Appendix D for additional detail.

Mapping of Change Manager Characteristics to Work Preferences

To answer the question, “Is it possible to identify individuals with these unique organizational change competencies?” we began by correlating unique change manager competencies identified by Nahmias and Crawford (see Exhibit 9) within three Work Preference Indicator measures: (1) Achieve Results, (2) Flexibility, and (3) Explore Ideas.

Exhibit 9 – Mapping of the Nahmias and Crawford change management characteristics to the Gilbert WPI.

Organizational Change Projects are Different

It is likely that if the individual or team responsible for the change has come from a technical background or even a project management background, he or she would have technical skills and project management skills but not necessarily the skills to implement organizational change. Project management techniques are not always conducive to achieving organizational change (Pellegrinelli & Partington, 2006).

Criteria for the Classification of CMs, PMs, and TMs (Team Members)

The criteria for classification of CMs, PMs, and TMs are shown in Exhibit 10. These change manager, CM, thresholds were driven by the high level of skill required to successfully drive organizational change. Thus, a CM had to score higher than 75 on the WPI in the three measures indicative of these three CM work preferences (1) Achieve results, (2) Explore Ideas, and (3) Flexibility. The project manager threshold was set lower at 50. See Exhibit 11 later in this paper for a graphic of the seven project manager (PM) work preferences and the seven team member (TM) work preferences.

Exhibit 10 – Thresholds for determining work preference alignment in the domains of project management and change management.

When an individual scored over 75 in CM and over 50 in TM, he or she was considered to have both change manager and program/project manager work preferences. According to “Suggested Decision Matrix for Engagement of Project Managers and Change Managers,” Nahmias and Crawford recommend that strategic initiatives, which by their nature are complex and require significant organizational change, have both a CM and a PM. It may be the case that the job is too big for one individual. Simply put, in this situation, the CM figures out what to do and the PM determines how to achieve the desired results.

The 17 WPI Preferences, Organized by CM, PM, and TM.

The Nahmias and Crawford CM, PM, and TM (Team Member) template developed in this paper is overlaid on the 17 factors of the WPI, as shown in Exhibit 11.

Exhibit 11 – The 17 WPI preferences mapped to CM, PM, and TM competencies.

4. Data Collected and Analyzed

CM, PM, TM: Composite WPI Profiles

The following CM, PM, and TM, composite profiles are based on the overall sample of over 150 individuals (Exhibit 12). The populations and their differences will be explained in detail in this paper.

Exhibit 12 – Composite WPI profiles of CMs, PMs and TMs.

In total. 178 individuals took the WPI. They participated in one of the author's (Garfein) workshops, seminars, and a master's-level university course. The participants were therefore a self-selecting population seeking to learn more about strategic portfolio management and strategic expanding throughput, the focus of the workshops and classes.

Expanded Definitions of Change Manager Work Preferences

Exhibit 13 provides additional definitional details on the three characteristics indicative of organizational change managers. Appendix D provides a summary of Work Preference Indicator Dimensions.

Exhibit 13 – Achieving results, exploring ideas and flexibility are indicators that map to the skills needed for effective organizational change.

Four Profiles of Change Manager Work Preferences

Appendix A is a summary of the total population of 178 individuals who took the WPI.

Appendix B lists the 20 participants scoring over 75, indicating they were potential organizational change manager candidates. From this pool of 20, four were interviewed. The sample was opportunistic, based on the first four individuals we were able to contact and interview. Although these four individuals scored over 75% in the three factors indicating these individuals may be effective organizational change managers, they also scored over 50% in the other two work preference categories, PM and TM, indicating they are also likely to be competent as project managers and team members.

Appendix C is a list of the interview questions. The interviews ranged from 25 minutes to 45 minutes and began with an open-ended question: ‘Tell me something about the last change program you were involved in.’

Exhibit 14 shows graphic profiles of the four interviewees.

Exhibit 14 – Graphic profiles of four participants with scores of over 75%, indicating they are likely to be competent organizational change managers.

Exhibits 15 through 18, are brief summaries from 25- to 45-minute interviews with each of the four participants.

Exhibit 15 – WPI Participant 1: “Rainmaker.”

Exhibit 16 – WPI Participant 2: “Poet.”

Exhibit 17 – WPI Participant 3: “General Manager.”

Exhibit 18 – WPI Participant 4: “Entrepreneur.”

5. Future Research

The authors believe further development of this organizational change manager identification methodology has the potential to increase the likelihood of project and program success.

1. The next phase of this research is to expand the pilot survey by conducting 10 or 12 more in-depth interviews, with those individuals who scored high in CM (the measures associated with effective organizational change management).
2. Redesign the questionnaire based on the pilot survey results.
3. Collaborate with PMI Research on the distribution of a large-scale survey to PMI members.
4. Perform quantitative analysis on data from the large-scale survey.
5. Write a research paper and submit it for publication in a research journal.
6. Present results in a PMI research conference
7. Translate the research results into an actionable management book for practitioners.

6. Conclusions

Conclusion 1. Three of the 17 WPI indicators indicate a preference for working in an organizational change role. These indicators are: (1) Results oriented behavior, focus on getting results and achieving goals; (2) Flexible, have flexibility, spontaneity, and freedom to act at work; and (3) Focus on ideas, work with concepts, ideas, and theories

Conclusion 2. The Work Preference Indicator is useful in the selection of individuals who are more likely to have organizational change skills.

Conclusion 3. In cases where projects and programs require significant change, individuals with organizational change skills, serving in either a leadership or supporting role, are likely to be helpful in expanding strategic throughput; that is, realize more of the strategic intent of the effort.

Conclusion 4. Upon verification of conclusions 1, 2, and 3, widespread dissemination of this research in academic journals and as a project management book, when coupled with the actual WPI instrument, will lead to measurable improvement in project and program successes.

Conclusion 5. The use of measures of work preferences at the start of a project will help practitioners:

• Identify those who are more likely to serve as a change manager (CM), a project or program manager (PM), or specific roles as a team member (TM).
• Improve knowledge of the work-related gifts each member is likely to bring to the project.
• Enhance job placement and task assignment decisions
• Facilitate team work by building on the understanding and respect for one another as members of a project team.

Appendices

Appendices Appendix A. WPI Sample Size, 178 Participants

Exhibit 19 – Participant Organizations and Locations.

Appendix B. In-depth interview sample size, four participants

From the total population of 178 individuals who took the WPI, 20 of the participants scored over 75, indicating they were organizational change manager candidates. From this pool of 20, four were interviewed. The interviews ranged from 25 minutes to 45 minutes. The sample was opportunistic; it was based on the first four individuals who could be contacted and interviewed.

Exhibit 20 – Potential Interview Participants
Venue Codes: HNTB – Engineering Company; WDC – PMI Washington DC chapter; UTS- University of Technology Sydney (Australia); Mega – PMI MegaSeminars^® World; Industry – Industry workshop (Australia); Nova S – Industry workshop (Nova Scotia).

Appendix C. In-Depth Interview Questions

Open-Ended Question –

• ‘Tell me something about the last change program you were involved in.’

You –

• Current country? Significant, because the WPI has only been validated in the United States and Australia and used by over 120,000 working adults.
• Where were you born?
• Where were you raised?
• Male or Female?
• Age?

Your Education and Certifications –

• List PMP^® and Other Certifications
• List Degrees and Advanced Degrees

Your Job –

• Name of Company or Agency Where You Work
• Division Name if Appropriate
• Number of Employees in Your Division
• Number of Employees in the Total Organization
• Your Job Title
• Are You an Independent Consultant (Y or N)?

Your Experience –

• Total Years of Work Experience Since Entering Workforce
• Have You Managed Projects (Y or N)?
• Have You Managed Programs (Y or N)?
• Have You Managed Portfolios (Y or N)?

Appendix D. Summary of Work Preference Indicator Dimensions

“The Work Preference Indicator is a scientifically based instrument that measures an individual's job task preferences (Gilbert et al., 2008). It assesses a person's relative strength or preference with 17 separate measures. These measures encompass three major areas, which include: Achievement, Relationship, and Analytic Orientation. The measures were empirically derived and have been replicated as both valid and reliable in two separate studies, with over 1,000 subjects in each study.”

“This tool is based on interest, work values, personality temperament and learning theory, which interrelate work preference with job performance. People tend to learn better and perform better when they are engaged in doing what interests them. This tool pinpoints and profiles what types of work and work environments an individual tends to like and dislike. It highlights their competitive advantages and aids in the identification of contributions the individual can make to the work environment. The tool is used for team building, mentoring and employee development. It is used to aid in finding the best fit between employee interests and the actual work needed to be performed.” Source: http://www.gilbertems.com/product_wpi.php

“Based on the combination of individual scores on these measures, each individual is classed as one of six major types. Each individual receives feedback that includes both a personalized written report, as well as a “scorecard” that compares the individual's scores with the overall database derived by Gilbert (2006) that represents the larger U.S. population of employees. Approximately eight pages of individualized interpretive feedback are provided to each individual.” Exhibits 21 and 22 provide additional descriptions of each work preference indicator.

Source: http://www.gilbertems.com/product_wpi.php

Exhibit 21 – Learning Styles and Work Styles included in the Work Preference Indicator. From Gilbert, Sohi, & McEachern (2012)

Exhibit 22 – Work Interests and Personality Temperament included in the Work Preference Indicator. From Gilbert, Sohi, & McEachern (2012)

Appendix E. WPI results for participant 1: “Rainmaker”

Exhibit 23 – Work preferences of Participant 1: “Rainmaker.”

This individual scored above the threshold to be classified as a CM (84%), PM (54%), and TM (50%). Interviews (Garfein) with and observations of the Rainmaker confirmed the low work preferences in the areas of mechanical interests (0%), working with data (4%), written material (7%), and task specificity (22%). The overall conclusion regarding the Rainmaker was that this individual was an outstanding change manager (actually observed in practice over a period of months; a good project manager, and a good team member, but did not particularly like to work with data, written material, and has a very low interest in mechanical things.