The Different Levels of Intervention in Change Management

Introducing and implementing change, irrespective of its scale, habitually proves to be a daunting task for the managers and professionals involved. What typically lies at the root of the failure of most of the projects aiming at introducing and implementing change is indeed their lack of accurate planning. Albeit many individuals are nowadays genuinely aware of the importance of introducing change and of how inevitable it actually is, insofar as every so often change initiatives are proposed by the same individuals eventually affected by it, people at large tend to avert change.

One of the most significant phases of the preparation of a change project is definitely represented by the correct identification of its level, or rather, levels of intervention. The concept of “level of intervention” is actually borrowed from Organization Development, which can be in many important respects regarded as a broader and more pervasive “total system” form of change management intervention. The main difference between Change Management and OD is that whereas the former takes care of the effects the introduction of change may produce upon individuals, the latter aims at aligning the ever-changing business strategy with internal readiness to effectually pursue it in practice. It can be contended that both of them aim, albeit to a different degree, at enhancing organizational effectiveness.

The concept of “level of intervention” is essentially associated with the precise and correct identification of the target groups a planned change is aimed at, which clearly represents one of the most significant phases of change management planning, somewhat of a prerequisite before developing a concrete and realistic plan of action for the introduction of change into an organization. It is indeed hardly conceivable that change might be planned before having identified the people impacted by it and the benefits it is intended to provide to the individuals concerned.

Change can actually affect an individual, a group or a whole organization. Duly taking heed of this particular aspect and developing the plan of action accordingly is of paramount importance for the production of the desired outcome of the overall change management project. As contended by Cheung-Judge and Holbeche (2015), each initiative is intended to produce the desired results according to the different levels of the system it is directed at. Developing a plan of action accurate for a level of the system, but implementing it at a different level of the system is clearly destined to result in a dismal failure.

According to some OD founders, the different levels of the system at which change agents can actually intervene, typically known as the “focus” or “units” of change, are:

-      Total organization, intergroup, single group or team, dyad or triad, role and person (Schmuck and Miles, 1976);

-      Larger social system, organization, intergroup, group, individual (Blake and Mouton, 1985);

-      Group, interpersonal and individual (Reddy, 1994).

Some of the descriptions of the different levels of a system provided include the prefix “inter” already. By enabling change management practitioners to derive two different sub-layers from the main ones identified, the use of the prefixes “inter” (between) and “intra” (within) can indeed help them to comprehensively detect the different layers of a system. The sub-layers produced by the system level “individual” or “person”, for instance, are “interpersonal” and “intrapersonal”, the former term refers to the relationship existing between two or more individuals, whereas the latter to an individual taken in isolation.

Intervening in a single level of the system would prove not to be enough so that change practitioners should seriously consider, according to the data available to them, intervening in different levels of the system at once. It is broadly acknowledged that to ensure the introduced change to be sustainable, the intervention should ideally cover no less than three levels of a system (Cheung-Judge and Holbeche, 2015).

The Group Dynamics theory developed by Lewin (1944, 1947) can effectively help change practitioners (and indeed OD practitioners) to gain a deeper understanding of how crucially important the correct identification of the right levels of a system and the overarching knowledge of the interrelationship existing between these are, for the development of a viable and successful plan of action aiming at introducing change.

The findings of the experimental studies conducted by Lewin (1944) revealed that individual decisions are sorely affected by the decision of the group to which these belong. Individuals having a personal negative attitude towards a proposed change, after a favourable group decision, took a more positive stance on the change. Group decisions thus contribute an individual the motivation to cooperate as a member of the group for the attainment of the common objective, to the detriment of his/her personal preferences and tendencies.

This type of individual behaviour clearly accounts for the group or team to gain efficiency; this result, nonetheless, is obtained dealing with each individual as a group member and not working with individuals taken in isolation. Lewin studies suggest that it is relatively more straightforward to change individual cultural habits and attitudes by working with groups rather than with individuals. Yet, so strong is the link naturally established between an individual motivation and his/her group decision as to having a positive impact on the practical implementation of the decisions made by the group and on the individual respect of the new norms eventually emerging from the group decisions. This is indeed a process very similar to that organizational culture develops. Once the shared values and beliefs are accepted by all of the individuals forming a group, these become norms and their strength reinforce with the passing of time, hence the difficulty to change organizational culture. The powerful influence exerted by a group on the individuals forming it can be consequently taken as axiomatic.

Whether change practitioners should deal with a single individual to foster and execute change, these should be well aware that the effect of their work is destined to vanish into thin air once the person in question will go back to his/her group. The influence exerted by his/her group is highly likely to prevail over any other external influence.

This groups’ feature should not be necessarily regarded positively, it has in fact some considerable downsides, the most significant of which is represented by the possible emergence of the so-called groupthink syndrome. The circumstance an individual complies whit the prevailing group viewpoint may prevent innovation in that individuals may refrain from proposing new ideas for fear of these being rejected by the group.

It can be contended that all of the layers or levels of a system are linked and interrelated. The successful introduction and implementation of change is not only considerably affected by the dynamics characterizing a group, but also by the impact that the change planned for a layer may have upon the other layers of the system.

Identifying the immediate or direct target of a change project does not hence suffice in that the planned change is highly likely to impact other units or teams within the business, never mind the whole organization. Do not carefully considering and timely dealing with the consequences the change intended for a layer may potentially have on the other layers of the system would definitely represent a major blunder, which can produce irreversible catastrophic effects.

This is actually the reason why many change projects, especially restructuring projects, fail. Once the primary target layer has been identified, it is of paramount importance to determine the organizational units or functions which may be affected by the execution of the change programme. This may require processes to be reviewed, senior and middle management competencies to be complemented with additional skills or some HR practices to be adapted (Cheung-Judge and Holbeche, 2015). The list of activities to be performed can clearly be much longer so that change practitioners should act as risk managers in this case and give to each activity a different level of priority so as to perform the identified tasks in the most appropriate order, as required by the circumstances.

It is crucially important that every aspect concerning the change initiative is duly taken into consideration and that the interdependencies between units and functions are all investigated and the issues eventually emerged properly addressed.

It is highly unlikely, for instance, that a change project directly impacting the Market Management and Sales functions of an insurance company would not make a considerable impact on its Underwriting and Claims functions, and in turn on their (directly managed or outsourced) Call-centre. This is just a general example, but it is self-explanatory of how the change projects managed within any given function of an organization are likely to impact others.

Lewin’s Group Dynamics theory essentially holds that whether the object of change is an individual, at least the group or team to which this belongs has to be also regarded as the direct object of change. Notwithstanding, it is hardly believable that the activities performed by a group within an organization’s function do not impact the activities performed by other groups within the same function or other functions of the organization. For the successful introduction and implementation of change it is of paramount importance that these interdependencies are timely identified so as to develop the most appropriate plan of action and avert having to deal with foreseeable issues during the change implementation process. This does not clearly entails that the execution of change is immune from problems, always expect the unexpected, but duly taking heed of all the variables which may affect the implementation of change during its preparation can definitely enable every individual handling change to considerably reduce the chances of failure.

It can be finally taken as axiomatic that identifying the immediate objective of change does not suffice; since the very beginning of the change preparation phase it is hence absolutely necessary to identify the different levels of the systems which will be affected, directly or indirectly, by the change initiative so as to develop the appropriate plan of action. Also in change management, prevention is definitely better than cure.

Longo, R., (2016), The Different Levels of Intervention in Change Management; Milan: HR Professionals, [online].

Change Management, Project Management and Risk Management (for HR): Complementary or Mutually Exclusive?

The pace change occurs in the external environment is constantly quickening, and the effect this produces upon the organizational context is increasingly dramatic. Change typically requires individuals to adopt a different approach to work and to modify their behaviour in the workplace, but more often than not change also entails individuals to learn new skills and enhance and hone their professional ability. Inasmuch as each individual, of any given change target group within an organization, is prompted to exhibit a different behaviour and gain new competencies to properly perform his/her job, HR professionals should show to be in the front line as regards their professional development in order to strengthen their credibility as change agents and change facilitators.

Despite the numerous assumptions and allegations, at times anecdotal, made now and then about the future of HR, just because this or that company has come up with a new way to perceive the HR Function, HR is definitely here to stay, at least as long as robots will not totally replace human beings. Since change management is essentially concerned with managing and controlling the likely impact change may make on individuals, the pivotal role played by HR in change management can be definitely taken as axiomatic. As contended by some of the prominent proponents of the socio-technical system from the British Tavistock Institute (Trist and Bamforth, 1951; Rice, 1958; Trist, 1960), organizational effectiveness and success rely on the adoption of their model. Whether employers should focus on the technical system only, to the detriment of the human social system, change may in fact prove to be extremely difficult to introduce, never mind to sustain over time.

HR professionals, notwithstanding, cannot on no account rest on their laurels, let alone can they assume to be those in charge of planning and introducing change whether they are unable to set a good example to the other employees. To effectually perform this daunting task HR should, first and foremost, constantly strive to expand its professional expertise and competence so as to prove employers, and the entire employee population, to be able to autonomously introduce and execute change when required.

Whereas HR professionals should be well acquainted with change management models and approaches, and with the relevant theories enabling them to carefully analyse the impact that change may potentially make on individuals so as to timely identify the countermeasures to oppose to the resistance eventually offered by employees to it, not all of the HR professionals might be fully acknowledged with some technical skills which would enable them to more properly and successfully perform their change agent or change facilitator role.

Planning and introducing change can be regarded, and should be hence managed, as a project so that a thorough and comprehensive knowledge of project management methodologies would indeed prove to be beneficial to HR professionals, clearly not only to hone their change management skills. Change management, at the same time, exposes employers to a considerable number of risks so that possessing a good understanding and knowledge of risk management would definitely increase HR professionals’ chances to successfully perform their change manager role.

Change management, project management and risk management can be hence regarded as three different disciplines HR professionals should become increasingly acquainted with, and able to autonomously master and adopt with complete confidence. The question is whether these methodologies can be actually considered mutually exclusive or complementary.

Change Management

Change is in general required within an organization when a gap between the current state and the desired state is identified; change management can be thus defined as the process activated by the employer to bridge this gap, taking heed of the possible resistance offered by employees (Boddy, 2008). Change management focuses on individual reaction to change and aims at controlling the restraining forces eventually opposing it. The relevance of people in change management is properly stressed by Rumble (2011), who defines change management as “an approach to address people-oriented implementation risks arising from change.”

Project Management

Fanning (2005) contends that “projects bring together resources, skills, technology and ideas to achieve business objectives and deliver business benefits.” Project management is thus intended as a structured method aiming at enabling employers attaining their intended objectives, within the preset deadline and budget constraints. Project management is also defined as “the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements” (2013, Project Management Institute).

Drawing a comparison between change management and project management

From the definitions of project management and change management it clearly transpires that project management is concerned with processes, tasks, resources, deadlines and deliverables; whereas change management aims at giving individuals to understand the importance of introducing, accepting and ultimately genuinely embracing change.

It may be argued that project managers at large perform the “administrative” activities associated with the management of a project, whereas change managers take care of the adverse, serious consequences change may have for individuals (Rumble, 2011). Change management is thus sorely important not only to ensure that the results expected from a project are obtained, but also to avert serious consequences in terms of employee motivation, contribution and morale, which all considerably impact organizational performance.

Not all of the projects planned and initiated within a business have a dramatic impact on individuals and require hence change management procedures to be planned and implemented so that project managers do not necessarily need to take care of this facet. Change management approaches, on the other hand, are adopted only whether a project entails individuals to change the way they perform their activities or behave, and may be hence pushed beyond their comfort zone.

Despite essentially different, project management can be easily integrated with change management. Since in order to effectually manage change a broad knowledge of HR theories is necessarily required, nonetheless, the two approaches can be properly managed in combination only by HR practitioners who have gained a solid understanding of project management, in addition to a thorough acquaintance with change management.

Project management is habitually performed executing five process groups (Prince2 identifies eight management processes), to wit: initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing (2013, Project Management Institute). Change management, taking as a reference the model outlined by Boddy (2008), unfolds through four stages, namely initiating, planning, designing and implementing. The outcome produced by the process does not actually represent one of its specific phases, but rather the result it yields.

Table 1

The two processes glaringly appear to be similar in structure. The analogies between project management and change management appear to be even more evident whether we consider the “life cycle”, also known as “rational-linear”, change management model. In this instance, the activities typical of project management can be in fact even more clearly identified.

Table 2

Irrespective of the specific methodology used to perform project management and change management, it can be contended that both processes essentially aim at enabling organizations and people respectively to move from an initial state to a desired state, after a transition period, in a structured and controlled fashion.

Table 3

This circumstance, nonetheless, may prove to be misleading about the real objectives which project management and change management aim at obtaining. As properly summarized by Prosci (2009), project management is concerned with the identification of the prescriptive activities necessary to smoothly move from the current state to the desired state. To attain this objective project management focuses on the identification of the necessary resources and on their most appropriate and convenient deployment; it hence analyses the systems, processes, organizational structure and job roles so as to come up with optimal solutions fitting the new employer needs and circumstances.

Change management, by contrast, is concerned with the identification of all the activities enabling the employer to successfully introduce change and oppose the restraining forces eventually arising against it. Change management essentially defines the activities and initiatives required to support the impacted target groups, in order for the individuals within these to accept and embrace change, avert disruptions during the change implementation process and ensure a smooth transition (Prosci, 2009).

Change management and project management essentially serve the same objective, but in a different fashion; the former is concerned with individuals, whereas the latter with processes. It can be contended that change management and project management represent the two sides of the same organizational performance coin.

The two activities can be indeed rather easily integrated. As discussed earlier, nonetheless, whether it is highly likely that a change manager may be able to properly manage change in autonomy, it is sorely unlikely that a project manager may be able to effectually manage change of his/her own. Project managers are typically very structured individuals with a process and procedures mindset enabling them to plan and execute their task with great precision and methodology. To deal with individual fears, expectations and at times anxiety, nevertheless, the knowledge of HR management and motivation theories assumes a paramount importance.

Change management is not about structure, processes and timelines; a structured approach, planning, deliverables and milestones are indeed crucially important to manage change, but whereas these activities represent the end in itself in project management, these can be regarded as the means to an end in change management. This does on no account imply that managing change is easy for HR; only individuals with a broad knowledge of organizational culture, motivation theories, employ relations and HR management theories and practices can in fact effectually perform this daunting task within the HR function.

Risk management

As stressed by Rumble (2011), change management can be considered as “an approach to address people-oriented implementation risks arising from change” and “focuses on people-oriented risk areas.” Change management entails, it can be argued by definition, risk so that change managers should invariably be ready to expect the unexpected.

The Chartered Institute of Internal Auditors’ International Standards define risk as “the possibility of an event to occurring that will have an impact on the achievement of objectives” and measures it “in terms of impact and likelihood.” Every project is indeed exposed to events and consequences which can offer benefits or pose threats to its successful implementation. Both project managers and change managers need therefore to be prepared to manage sudden undesirable and desirable occurrences.

Risk management is essentially concerned with identifying the impact and consequences, both negative (downside risk) and positive (upside risk), which the events occurring in the external context might produce in the organizational environment, and properly treat and capitalize on these. As maintained by Flood (2013), "Risk management is analysing, and then acting appropriately, on risk." This clearly entails risk management being regarded as a process concerned with “planning, organizing, directing, and controlling resources to achieve given objectives when surprisingly good or bad events are possible” (Head, 2009). Since Risk management is habitually concerned with addressing negative, rather than with exploiting positive events, it can be in many respects regarded as a modern variation of problem solving (Head, 2009).

Rumble (2011) identifies five main areas of risk in change management, to wit: poor sponsorship and leadership of change, a not accurately and sufficiently articulated storyline, poor consideration of the stakeholders, insufficient and poor communication of change, and lack of change empowerment.

The introduction and implementation of change within an organization arguably represents one of the most difficult task employers are prompted to perform in modern times; risks can literally arise at any time. Notwithstanding, it all depends on the accuracy and care paid by employers and change managers during the planning and preparation phases of change. The more accurate the preparation, the less likely that major risks may occur. To this extent change managers and change agents should strive to consider all the possible occurrences which may affect their plans. Gaining a good insight into risk management techniques will unquestionably prove to be extremely helpful and beneficial to change managers, it can in fact enable them to:

- Detect and classify risks;

- Measure and evaluate the impact of each risk before it actually occurs;

- Identify the measures which can be taken to mitigate downside risks and take advantage of upside risks.

The synergic use of the three methodologies

Despite representing and being considered as stand-alone approaches, risk management, project management and change management can be definitely effectively used in combination. The combined use of the three disciplines can indeed results in a synergy, which by enabling change managers to enhance the effectiveness of their activity, can show to be very productive. The role of change managers is clearly particularly hard so that the HR professionals called to play it should do their utmost to gain an in-depth knowledge of the three methodologies to build on their complementariness.

To effectively play the role of change managers, notwithstanding, HR professionals should also be capable to properly analyse the internal context, that is to say the organizational components which shape individual behaviour and strongly influence the way individuals may react to a proposed change. Context and culture may in fact make or break any employer’s bid to introduce change within an organization. As suggested by Pettigrew et al (1992), organizational context can prove to be either receptive or non-receptive of change and hence badly affect the employer capability to introduce and implement change. The organizational context should be consequently definitely regarded as an additional area of risk by change managers.

Managing change does not entail the sheer knowledge of a structured model to be used in a prescriptive fashion. Change management aims at gaining change target groups, that is to say individual, acceptance, support, participation and ultimately engagement. It entails change managers to be able to understand organizational culture and individual fears, and being able to help employees to ease these.

The knowledge of the different change management models and approaches developed over time, of the different causes which may account for individuals to oppose and resist change, and of the assessment methods used to evaluate driving and restraining forces to change are all unquestionably significant.

Managing change is not about glory and visibility, but rather about performing one of the most sensitive activities within a business. The knowledge, skills and competencies necessary to effectually perform this daunting task might prove to never be enough; that is basically why this activity can be on no account left in the hands of those who are not properly prepared to perform it, also within the HR function.

Longo, R., (2016), Change Management, Project Management and Risk Management (for HR): Complementary or Mutually Exclusive?; Milan: HR Professionals, [online].