Mistakes In The Workplace: When Change Management Goes Wrong

Change management, as a strategic company asset, only began to be openly valued in the 1990s. Since then the field, which surrounds including employees in company changes, has evolved and its importance has been formalised: bachelor and master degrees in change management emerged not too long ago, and HR departments now employ specialists in this area. It seems unlikely that this field's rise has nothing to do with a general trend in employee psyche: a poll carried out in the US1 supports what's now accepted as a general truth, that younger workers value happiness and inclusion at work, contrasting to older workers who value income and skill acquisition.

The value of change management is twofold. First, when done well, companies can pivot quickly to seize opportunities (a new technology, for example) or to minimise unforeseen threats like a CEO's departure, plummeting share price, or a tough new regulation. For example, Shell, amidst a crisis in 2004, hastily but effectively updated its processes and structure worldwide in order to preserve its market share. And second, keeping employees—especially the millennial generation, some of whom are into their thirties already—abreast of the when, why, and how of change keeps them committed, included, and energised.

As an HR professional, I have seen many mistakes when it comes to change management. My team and I, comparing notes on our various experiences, have put together the following list of three common pitfalls to be wary of.

1. Change for change's sake—or the perception thereof

   Business gurus and conference hounds are constantly shouting about change, change, change—transform your technological capacity, slim down for increased competitive edge, plan better for regulatory changes! For the most part, they're right: you need agility to stay on top. However, such talk is mostly aimed at the C-suite. From an HR perspective, I would like to point out how easily talk of change can come across negatively to employees, who have plenty of daily concerns other than the company's exact position in the field. A CEO might be excited over a new robotic process automation solution, but employees will instantly assess its relevance to their own skills and livelihood.

   For that reason, it's important to ensure that employees understand that change isn't happening for change's sakethat it isn't pointlessand to keep in mind that they will have a much lower threshold for perceiving it that way. (As they should...