Navigating Change and Building Trust: CEO Commentary on Organisational Progress

As local, European, and general elections loom, the winds of change lurk close by. In truth, change is a double-edged sword, as it heralds often necessary progress, whilst simultaneously producing inevitable discomfort.

This also applies to organisations. Organisational change is a critical aspect of modern management, reflecting the dynamic nature of external environments and internal demands. For membership bodies such as the PSI, managing change often incurs unique challenges due to their diverse stakeholder interests, and often voluntary stakeholder base.

A helpful roadmap for change - though I do like the simplicity of Kurt Lewin's three-stage ‘Change Management Model’ that comprises Unfreezing, Changing and Re-freezing - is John Kotter's Eight-Step Process, introduced in the 1990s. It includes:

1. Creating a sense of urgency (reflecting the often exigent nature of change).
2. Forming a guiding coalition (partnership being a ubiquitous watchword in modern organisational thinking).
3. Developing a vision and strategy.
4. Communicating the change vision (i.e., the purpose and end goal of the change).
5. Empowering employees for broad-based action.
6. Generating short-term wins (and celebrating short-term wins is also important for this journey).
7. Consolidating gains.
8. Anchoring new approaches in the culture.

Whilst Kotter’s model may infer a linear approach, the reality is that most organisations will likely take a more meandering and organic path. One explanation for this is that change – whether that is for something as global as the climate crisis, or as local as the evolution of a membership body like the PSI – invariably has a human aspect to it. The ADKAR Model (Jeff Hiatt) reflects this with its contention that successful organisational change requires individuals to change. Because the ADKAR model focuses on the individual change journey - Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement – it can be useful to consider in addressing the diverse motivations and concerns of members.

Change is a hygiene factor in progress. As Socrates so eloquently put it: “If you can’t change your mind you can’t change anything”. There are several antecedents for change to be successful. All are relevant for consideration when the end goal is greater acceptance of the need to do things differently regardless of whether that means being more environmentally friendly, adopting robust equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) policies, or improving administration and structure within a membership organisation.

Leadership drives organisational change, and effective leaders need to demonstrate a strong commitment to the change process to visibly support change initiatives and to align their actions with the desired outcomes. For the PSI, for example, this means having change champions at board and committee level, amongst senior executives, and including influential volunteers across the divisions and special interest groups (SIGs).

Every roadmap for change needs a clear, compelling vision, one that aligns stakeholders, and in the PSI’s case members, with the organisation's goals. This vision should articulate the benefits of change for the organisation and its members, creating a sense of shared purpose.

Clearly articulated, transparent, and continuous communication is crucial for managing change in membership bodies. Regular updates and accessible channels for feedback help build trust, encourage involvement, and mitigate resistance. Effective communication is a two-way street, that involves disseminating information whilst also listening to feedback, comments, and concerns.

Involving stakeholders in the change journey, possibly in its planning and definitively in the implementation of change initiatives, not only enhances buy-in and reduces resistance, but also creates and supports a sense of ownership that is invaluable to success.

Understanding and addressing the specific needs and concerns of members is critical. This involves conducting thorough needs assessments and regularly engaging with members to gauge their sentiments and preferences regarding the change. Personalised approaches and targeted interventions can help address specific issues and build member support.

Equally key, though I am of course preaching to the choir, is the creation of a psychologically safe environment where internal stakeholders, in our case members and staff, feel equally comfortable expressing concerns as they do suggesting ideas. This goes a long way to fostering a culture of respect, inclusion, and open dialogue.

A valuable question to ask is whether the organisation needs, or can tolerate, radical transformation or if incremental change is preferable. The latter can offer a gradual timeline that can minimise disruption and the continuity of services. But equally, it may be more expedient, or indeed necessary, to consider and deliver more substantive deliberate change. Both incur risks that need to be considered, along with which approach will best facilitate sustainable member engagement and support.

Celebrating short-term wins and acknowledging successes can boost morale and reinforce the change effort. Also important is learning from setbacks and failures, which provides valuable insights and strengthens future change initiatives.

The final turnkey element to successful change is accountability: how the change is monitored, how it is reported, how feedback loops are allowed for, and how improvements are proposed and considered. Setting clear metrics, reviewing their progress, and building flexibility into the system, close out this final critical aspect to change.

But really, what lies at the heart of successful change is trust. Trust in the process. Trust in the people. Trust that the end goal will be better than the current status quo. To quote bestselling author and management guru, Steven Covey: “Change happens at the speed of trust”.

Blog post by Sheena Horgan Chief Executive Officer The Psychological Society of Ireland

References

Caldwell, S. D., Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. (2009). "Toward an understanding of the relationships among organizational change, individual differences, and changes in person-environment fit: A cross-level study." Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 942-954.

Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). "Challenging 'resistance to change.'" Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1), 25-41.

Edmondson, A. (1999). "Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams." Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

Hiatt, J. (2006). "ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government, and Our Community." Prosci Research.

Herzberg, F. (1968). "One more time: How do you motivate employees?" Harvard Business Review, 46(1), 53-62.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). "Leading Change." Harvard Business Review Press.

Lewin, K. (1947). "Frontiers in Group Dynamics." Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). "A theory of human motivation." Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.