Transformation Processes – Three Common Fails

No chance of change: these typical sources of conflict prevent true transformation.

When it comes to change, innovation and agile work and organization models, the Covid-19 crisis acted as an accelerator – and a catalyst. Many companies were confronted with the need to set up the required structures within a very short space of time. Yet despite this accelerated transformation, companies should be aware that the term “transformation” merely describes the process of change towards a desired end-vision. However, the change is not completed when this end-vision is reached; instead, it remains an ongoing, agile and optimizing process.

Over the years, Carmen Tscharre-Späth, Head of Transformation at Plan.Net Group, has observed recurring patterns in transformation processes – both with clients and within her own organization – that either obstructed or completely derailed the project. The following three sources of conflict can obstruct transformation:

1. Top-down vs collaboration

A top-down transformation process will certainly be quicker to implement, but can also rapidly develop into a test of employees’ trust. Employees are naturally more accepting of agile and integrative change processes – but these take longer to implement. Both approaches have their merits. The crucial factor, however, is a clear and powerful vision that a majority of colleagues can identify with and also follow. Where such a vision is lacking, neither approach will contribute much to the company’s success.

2. Hierarchy vs individual responsibility

Every process of change begins with the individual. No matter how well-prepared, well-thought-out and well-implemented a new agile organization, process or method is, it is still generally doomed to fail when there is a lack of willingness to question and change one’s own mindset – and this applies to managers too. The corporate vision is the CEO’s responsibility, yet entrusting its strategic implementation to their own colleagues is something that most company directors still struggle with. This is despite the fact that, with a transformation process in particular, it is important to demonstrate faith in one’s own employees, actively involve them in shaping the process and convince them of its necessity by communicating with them clearly and transparently.

3. Blueprints vs DNA

It is only natural to be tempted to seek inspiration from existing models used by other companies, or from methods such as “Holacracy”, the “Spotify Model” or SAFe (Scaled Agile Framework), to name but a few examples. However, these models are predominantly the product of iterative and agile processes and/or were designed for a specific company. Adopting these 1:1 for one’s own company will prove impossible in most instances. Companies would be well-advised to develop their own, bespoke approach, tailored to their business model, without sacrificing the DNA – the heart of their corporate identity – of their company.

Transformation always involves change, and above all requires the courage to get out of one’s comfort zone. Nevertheless, one should not be unduly fearful but instead move forward with confidence. No matter how well-planned the process, there are bound to be mistakes along the way. And not every employee will be on board with the process from the outset, and not everyone will see the journey through to the end. It is therefore all the more important to demonstrate continuity and endurance. That is because change is something wonderful and positive: it provides fresh perspectives, creative freedom and new opportunities – for every individual.

Contact: Carmen Tscharre-Späth, Head of Transformation Plan.Net Group