KPIs for sustainable change: focus on Head, Heart and Hands

Introduction

Over the past 10 years, we've had the privilege to support hundreds of organizations in their change initiatives. What if we could use this experience to discover common insights about what makes change successful and provide benchmarks?

We decided to look in detail at the most frequently “best shared” opinions and ideas (what we called synthetrons) about the change process in multiple online dialogue sessions to discover new insights into what makes change successful (see methodology below).

The 3H Model

In screening these key messages, we identified a few systemic recurring change drivers that we categorize in an anthropomorphic way: Head, Heart and Hands (3H).

We learned that when it comes to change, people need to be convinced of the rationale of change, to analyse and think about it (Chieftain), they must also believe in it, be emotionally attracted to it, be aware of the associated behavioral and cultural changes needed to make it work (Heart). Finally, they consistently talk about the ability to implement it by having the necessary resources, resources, and tools (Hands). This is how our 3H model was born.

‍

Our 3H model in a nutshell

• Head, goWhat about the rationale for change, the need to be convinced of change: the reconciliation
• Heart is about the soft part of change, the need to believe in change: the involvement
• Hands is about the hard part of the change, the ability to make the change happen: the implementation

What did we learn about the 3 H?

1. Change needs focus on all 3 H
We did not have a single dialogue where all 3H not in any way were present. People always talk about the need to embrace rationale, be convinced of the need/believe in the way forward, but also want to be able to make change happen.

2. “Hands” - the ability to make the change happen - requires the most attention

About half of the comments regarding change are about Hands, 30% is about Heart and 20% about Head. “Hands” is less sexy from a management perspective, but Hands is linked to daily reality and is what matters to those who have to make the change happen and make it happen.

Deviations from the benchmark (average weight from the database) are surprisingly small. When we noticed an underrepresentation of one of the 3H change drivers, content analysis taught us that this was usually the result of the poor “performance” on one of the H's for the organization in question.

3. Underperforming in one of the 3 H is like driving with the handbrake on

You can use the underperformance of, for example, the Heart - the behavioral part, the role model - simply do not compensate with overcompensation from the Head - explain why the change is important - because people understand you but don't believe you.

We once worked with a manager who had gone to great lengths to explain the change story, the rational part. He really went into the field, held town hall meetings, message boards, newsletters, etc. to explain that the company would henceforth focus on market A. But because the reward system still rewarded more results in market B than in A, no one believed him and extra effort wouldn't have helped. The motivation just wasn't there. When the systems, processes, investments in competences (Hands) are missing, people can be convinced or even involved, they simply lack the ability to make it happen.

4. Consistency is key, people in change immediately spot inconsistencies
We see so often that when a manager doesn't do what he says (Hart), people stop believing him/her and the alignment gradually erodes. Similarly, we had a case where the strategic/change direction was unclear (Main). The CEO focused on cultural change and new behavior, and many activities were set up, creating positive energy and engagement. But because his management team didn't understand which direction they were supposed to go, because the CEO didn't make the strategy explicit (Head), people weren't on the same page. Despite all efforts to create engagement, the organization did not move forward.

If the systems, processes, investments in competences (Hands) are missing, people may be convinced or even involved, they simply lack the ability to make it happen.

‍5. Phasing 3H change efforts is counterproductive
Classic phasing is about first telling the change story, then organizing events to motivate people and then expecting them to change/implement.

Although, on average, the 3Hs have a different weight depending on the phase in the change initiative (planning, implementation, debriefing), our data clearly shows that all 3H's need attention from start to finish. People also want to feel the change (Hart) when they're told things need to change. They want to be reminded in the middle of the implementation what major project they're contributing to (Head). They want to see from the start which investment (Hands) will support the change.

‍6. Hands is about more than material things: it also includes people's abilities
Handen is about processes, budgets, systems, but also about the people's skills and abilities. This includes classic training, building competences, freeing up time, finding the right profiles, but also working on endurance, energy, and ability to motivate yourself for the next change.

How did we build the 3H model?
We have built a fully anonymized database to quantify, qualify and further investigate the key drivers for successful change. Today, this database includes more than 21,000 “synthetrons” (these are typically the top 15% most important ideas identified by participants during online dialogues) from more than 200 sessions organized on behalf of 50+ companies.

Today, our consultants use the 3H model to help our clients benchmark their change initiative and identify key priorities to succeed.