Skip to content

Chill out! (the perils of making changes while “running hot”)

Struggling business operations are prime candidates for “improvement projects”. The organisation wants to raise quality, be more productive, reduce costs, have more satisfied staff, and reduce risk. If operations are “running hot” all the time, with people and processes under strain, there will be plenty of dysfunction, poor customer outcomes, and no small amount of grumbling that together all scream “something must be done!”.

Gas or steam leaking from an industrial pressure gauge.

Business analysts, project managers, and a host of other change professionals will rush to the scene to answer these cries for help (albeit rarely in capes and Spandex!). Improved processes and better systems will soon be designed and deployed, and Benefits will rain down from above.

However, making changes in a business operation that is already smoking and shaking is both really hard and fraught with risk! If you’re going to be asking people to go above-and-beyond, they must know you’re doing all you can to take care of them.

The dangers of trying to fix things while “running hot”

If the business is under great pressure, nobody has time to contribute to shaping or delivering the change.

People don’t attend workshops or interviews, or can’t provide information about how things currently operate. Knowledge and experience don’t filter through into problem definition or solution identification. We can find ourselves misunderstanding the real underlying needs, or missing key information that should inform decisions about solution choices and design. Design choices or solution options may not get enough scrutiny by people that could hold key insights.

A very busy and hot kitchen, with flames and steam.

People may not feel consulted, or may not understand why decisions are being made. They won’t “own” any changes, so their commitment to them may be very thin.

Key people won’t have time to commit to ensuring the solution works in practice (e.g. in user acceptance testing). They will then raise countless change requests or defects as soon as things go live, triggering re-work and no small amount of frustration.

People will miss training sessions. Emails and helpful guides will be skimmed, or even left unread. People won’t receive and absorb information about how the new world will work. As well as the tidal wave of support requests, you could see processes descend into chaos, with a knock-on impact on customers or other stakeholders.

As the change is delivered, people will feel even more squeezed, and could become resentful of having changes thrust upon them when they’re already struggling. They may even become obstructive. Relationships will sour, and future changes will suffer additional challenges of disappointment and mistrust. Indeed, if teams have been operating beyond a sustainable level for a while, some relationships may have already begun to break down, creating a very challenging environment in which to pursue changes. Worse still, people may come to believe that the organisation simply doesn’t care about their wellbeing!

With dysfunction and a lack of engagement, the benefits of the change initiative or product may never be achieved, resulting in wasted investment. If the change is delivered badly, it may even make things worse for people rather than better!

Take time to assess the situation before starting a project. Take the temperature. Listen to those that will be delivering the change, and those that will be affected by it. As the business case is assembled and feasibility assessed, consider whether things are running hot and how this might affect delivery.

Cooling things down

To fix things successfully, we need a cooler environment and a little more breathing space. Before embarking on an initiative, there are steps we can take to lower the temperature.

Make more time or resources available so that people have capacity to get involved. This might include investment in additional resources, or pausing non-essential activities. Additional resources could include temporary hires or secondments, and these are best allocated to backfilling day-to-day activities, enabling experienced experts to engage with the change project. Overtime is worth considering – but this may already be in use to keep things afloat, or there may be little appetite for it of people are already burnt out!

Explore whether changes could be spread over a longer period of time so that peak demands on people’s capacity and attention are reduced. Consider whether change should be delivered incrementally, rather than as a “big-bang”. Explore iterative change and transition states.

Explore which initial changes will make further improvements easier to achieve – those that free up capacity, raise morale, or provide tools or insights that will enable downstream improvements. Pursue these first, and successful delivery will build trust and increase the likelihood of further wins.

Look at incentives for engagement and participation, both in terms of tangible rewards and in culture and behaviours. Where existing targets and objectives may act as dis-incentives to engagement, consider whether these can be amended or adjusted.

Watch levels of change saturation. Identify who is impacted by changes (and how), and ensure they’re not being swamped or confused by the degree of flux. It’s worth looking at upstream and downstream activities in this context, as changes in one business area can often create ripples (or waves!) that affect other functions or processes. Take regular soundings as things progress, and address issues early.

All these things can mean changes require additional investment or time. These must be “priced-in” to any business case and the implementation of change methodologies – they are the cost of ensuring success! Investing in better support and a more sustainable approach sends a very strong signal to those affected that they are heard and supported.