There are two basic change approaches for any initiative or project—some projects are best suited to be compliance-driven; others must be commitment-driven.  Neither approach is inherently right or wrong, better or worse.  Each approach has predictable outcomes, upsides, and downsides.  By understanding the differences, and the appropriate use of either compliance (using the hammer) or commitment (using transition management to change hearts and minds), you can increase the odds of a successful implementation.

Using the Hammer

There are certain situations where compliance-driven change is the best choice.  For example, when safety is at stake, during an emergency situation, or if regulatory issues are involved, the hammer is called for.  In these situations, it’s not important whether the targets (those people most affected by the change) “believe” in the change or not.  What the organization is looking for is quick and visible results.

This doesn’t mean, however, that compliance changes are easy—they require a structured framework like AIM (Accelerating Implementation Methodology) for managing the human elements.  What’s more, there is a definite price to pay for these types of changes over the long term.  While organizations will see an uptick in productivity in the short-term, the productivity will fall off as resistance to the change builds.   In fact, compliance-driven changes “cost” more over time, because of the energy and resources needed to sustain the change over the long term. 

Commitment-Driven Changes Requires More Skill and Planning

Other organizational changes require a commitment of belief from the targets.  In these types of changes, application of the hammer won’t work, because no matter how hard you “hit” people you won’t get to the desired behaviors.  For these changes, there is a psychological process known as transition management that must take place.  Essentially, in transition management there is an end to the present state followed by transition state, and then a beginning of the desired state.  Note that this is a three-step process, not an event.

During the transition state, targets experience a period of high uncertainty and a downturn in productivity and morale.  If not managed properly, people will retreat to the old ways.  A common example of this is in the adoption of new technology, where people will go back to doing work in the old way rather than actually use the new system.

While you can’t eliminate the transition state, you can manage it so that the downturn is less severe, and the duration is shorter.  This is accomplished through active  sponsorship and reinforcement strategies that promote the desired behaviors and extinguish the old behaviors.  Keep in mind that the motivation to leave the old ways behind must exceed the motivation to stay, and pain and need are the most powerful motivators.

By applying the principles of the AIM methodology, and developing AIM deliverables such as sponsor and reinforcement strategies, you can provide the structure and support needed to dramatically increase the likelihood and the speed of Return on Investment.

If you would like to learn tactics and strategies for dealing with compliance and commitment-driven changes, attend our Exploring AIM introductory program, available publicly in the U.S., UK and Australia, and on-site.  For more information, call 800-752-9254 or 303-996-7777.