Key Points
An accurate understanding of the complexity of a workplace change leads to better strategic and tactical decisions in support of successful change implementation.
The interplay between two factors provides insight into change complexity — Change Impact (Scale, Scope, Pace) and Readiness (Willingness and Capability).
Evaluating complexity of a change is an inexact science, but a variety of tools and methods are available to aid in the process.
A failure to recognize the full significance of a workplace change is at the heart of many challenges faced in organizational change implementation. From unrealistic expectations about timeframes and appropriate resourcing, to mismatched change supports, or gaps in outreach.
Whether it's a minor adjustment in processes, a new policy rollout, a system upgrade, or organizational transformation, a critical question is: How big of a deal is this change, really?
In asking this question, we move beyond thinking about change as a noun — the technical solution we are implementing — and begin to consider change as a verb — what it will take to integrate that solution into our organization.
Building a shared awareness of the magnitude and complexity of organizational change can make all the difference in successfully navigating through it to achieve desired results. Let's explore why assessing the size and complexity of organizational change matters, delve into the concepts of change impact and readiness, and review some practical tools to help us gauge them effectively.
Why it’s Important to Evaluate the Complexity of a Workplace Change
Imagine organizational change as a journey. Evaluating the complexity of our change is akin to understanding the distance and difficulty of the terrain ahead and how prepared we are to travel it. Is it like a walk through a park, in a busy city, with 3,000 elementary students? Traversing a mountain range with an elite group of highly skilled climbers? A strenuous day hike in familiar terrain, participants with a mix of ability levels, and the possibility for bad weather?
“Interrogating change complexity moves us beyond thinking about change as a noun — the technical solution we are implementing — to consider ing change as a verb — what it will take to integrate that solution into our organization.”
Building awareness of the true size and complexity of a change provides vital information to inform both strategic and tactical aspects of the change process. It can help a manager anticipate and address challenges, executives to prioritize and allocate resources wisely, and everyone to share realistic expectations of what lies ahead. By sizing up the change early on, we can pave the way for a smoother transition and increase the likelihood of achieving results from our efforts.
A Simple Formula for Big Insights About Your Change
Research suggests that understanding the size and complexity of any organizational change — and the likely degree of effort it will take to enable it — involves considering the interplay between the IMPACT of the change and the organization's READINESS to embrace it.
We might think of it as an equation: Impact/Readiness —> Complexity
To be clear, there is no single definition of the concepts of change impact and readiness, or a standardized way to measure them in the academic literature; they are somewhat nebulous. However, some fundamental ideas stand out and can guide our approach, let’s review them.
Change Impact Defined
Change impact relates to the structural aspects of a change, including:
Scale — The number of people and locations or functions affected
Scope — The extent of change at the organizational (strategy, structure) and individual levels (competencies, compensation, reporting)
Pace— The tempo and duration of the change
As the scale, scope, duration, and pace of change increase, so does the complexity of the change process. For instance, a change that affects one aspect of a single team’s work is quite different than a wholesale reinvention of process that involves various internal departments and external stakeholders.
A small change alone may seem of small consequence; however, if it is implemented alongside five other changes all with tight deadlines, that ramps up the complexity of supporting the organization through the process of integrating it.
Change impact relates to the scale, scope and pace of change. However, if we consider impact in isolation, we may conclude that the more impact, the more change management is needed. This is not wholly wrong, but it’s not wholly right either. The degree of additional effort required to enable change in our organization is also influenced by the existing readiness of the organization, leaders, and staff to undertake the change.
Change Readiness Defined
Readiness provides insight into how willing and able, or capable, the organization, impacted teams, and individuals are to create the change that’s envisioned.
Ability or Capability pertains to both existing know-how relevant to the change and, importantly, confidence in one’s ability to learn.
Willingness highlights how much the change is valued. The reasons for valuing the change can vary, whether it's because it's believed to be effective, aligns with organizational values, personally benefits individuals, or is viewed as important by influential people in the company. Regardless of the reasons, willingness is a reflection of the current level of motivation in the organization to make the necessary sacrifices to bring about change.
[Some researchers include an additional factor when considering change readiness, which has to do with opportunity or capacity. This relates to whether or not people have the necessary resources and support to engage in the change. That is, they may support it, and have the skills necessary, but they don’t have the resources necessary to engage. Examples include unfunded mandates (lack of material resources), lack of time or conflicting priorities, or lack of peer or managerial support.]
Broadly speaking, as readiness increases, the level of effort required to enable the change decreases. In addition, differentiating between willingness and capability is also useful. Understanding where we have strengths and weaknesses in existing readiness enables us to tailor our investments in change management to those change practices that might be most effective for our situation. For example, given a group that is relatively well-skilled but doesn’t see the need for change, our emphasis may be more on influential communication and participation in change-decisions, along with investments in more advanced training.
The Inexact Science of Assessing Change Impact and Readiness
Evaluating change impact and readiness is an inexact science. There is no single prescription for how to do it, but there are a variety of commonly used tools. A good rule of thumb is to start small and go deeper as we gain better understanding of the magnitude of the change.
Regardless of which methods we choose, some practices to follow include:
Assess various dimensions of impact and readiness. While we do not need to analyze to the “nth” degree, we may want to ensure we touch on multiple aspects of impact and readiness, e.g., moving beyond raw numbers of people impacted, to understanding differences in team culture or priorities for wide-scale changes.
Gather perspectives from a representative group of stakeholders to ensure we develop an accurate picture. If we are only talking to one function, or the management level, we are unlikely to uncover blind spots.
Share what we find. Remember that information about change complexity has both strategic and tactical value. It is useful for those involved in developing change tactics and the change management approach. It is equally critical to inform executives’ understanding and decision-making about a change. Overall, a shared understanding of change complexity can support realistic expectations across the organization of the effort and resources required to successfully enable the desired change in the organization.
Methods for Assessing Change Impact
Scale of Impact – How many people, across how many locations or functions?
Scale can be thought of as the breadth of change. How many people are affected across how many reporting lines in how many geographic locations? For example, implementing a new software system across all departments and locations of a large multinational corporation would have a significant scale, affecting thousands of employees across multiple regions. However, a shift in scheduling may only impact a single team, under a single leader, thus the scale would relatively small.
Tools that can help to analyze the scale of change impact include the “Blast Radius”, often used in software design, and “Power/Interest Matrix” borrowed from strategy development.
Blast Radius
The “blast radius” tool enables a high-level assessment of the reach of a change. This tool is borrowed from software development and popular amongst those focused on agile change processes.
It is used in group discussions, to visualize the spread and impact of change initiatives much like the effect of an explosion, demonstrating both the immediate area of greatest impact and the subsequent, wider-reaching effects. This metaphor illustrates that it is important to understand not only who is directly affected by the change but also the ripple effects that may touch on less obvious parts of the organization or external stakeholders.
Power/Interest Matrix
The Power/Interest matrix is an evolution of stakeholder mapping theories developed by Colin Eden and Fran Ackermann. It offers a more granular approach to stakeholder analysis. By categorizing stakeholders based on their level of interest in the organizational change and their power to influence it, this matrix allows us to prioritize engagement and tailor strategies to different groups, ensuring that critical stakeholders are identified and managed appropriately.
When we combine this analysis of impacted stakeholder groups with the readiness of these groups (more on that below), we can often optimize our investments in change management.
Scope of Impact —How much change, how fast, and for how long?
There are a variety of terms used to describe the scope and nature of a workplace change, which generally range from incremental to radical.
Incremental, or evolutionary changes are those that happen over longer time periods, within existing systems and structures and often build on core capabilities.
On the other end of the spectrum is radical or transformative change, which involves shifts that fundamentally alter the organization (or teams, or individual roles) in terms of strategy, structure, and operations.
To analyze scope, we can start by gathering stakeholder perspectives about where on the spectrum from incremental to radical our envisioned change sits. If warranted, a next step involves delving more deeply into how change impact will be felt in the organization.
Organizational Scope
Christopher T. Street and R. Brent Gallupe suggest that to gauge the scope of change at the organizational level, we can think about the extent of shifts in three critical areas:
Strategy: This can include shifts aimed at advancing the company’s position, such as in strategic orientation, business model, or core products or services.
Structure: This involves changes such as organizational redesigns or the redistribution of power to facilitate more efficient decision-making or enhance overall agility.
Operations: This relates to the intended implementation of new or altered processes, systems, and controls within the organization.
Individual Scope
To understand the breadth and depth of change that staff will be asked to absorb as part of the envisioned workplace change, we can consider the degree of shift in:
What the work is: Job/Role Responsibilities, Performance Standards, Governance & Reporting
How work is done: Knowledge & Skills, Systems, Processes & Tools, People & Relationships
Relationship to the Work/Organization – Compensation, Location, Job Security, Time Burden, Mindset/Beliefs
To evaluate these aspects of staff work experience, it’s wise to gather perspectives directly from those in the roles that will be impacted, as they often have insights into their work and how it’s done that others will not have.
Pace: How fast and for how long are we “changing”?
The impacts of pace during change are often relative to the context. What may seem fast or radical in a mature organization could be deemed plodding or incremental at a startup. We’ll want to bring our knowledge of our organizational context to our analysis of timing impacts.
Even so, some ways to differentiate how change pace may affect the organization during a change include:
Episodic vs. Continuous: Episodic change tends to be infrequent, isolated and significant (scope). There is generally a more defined beginning and end to these organizational change efforts. While continuous change tends to be an ongoing process of frequent, small changes, that accumulate over time. Agile change management is often used for continuous change.
Duration: The end-to-end length of a defined change initiative, or a change cycle within continuous change.
Tempo: Reflects the pace in which staff are anticipated to adopt and adjust to the change.
For example, a switch from system A to B may be episodic, take a few weeks, and involve a high intensity of effort from impacted staff during that period. However, adoption of a new process, such as agile or lean, may be continuous, with ongoing experimentation and learning, done at a lower-level intensity with “mastery” achieved over several years.
Methods for Assessing Change Readiness
Change readiness is a concept that gets at our individual and collective preparedness for what lies ahead as the organization integrates a given change.
It reflects the beliefs of people in the organization about the need for the change and the capacity of the organization to successfully create it. Research links the degree of change readiness to people's decisions to support or resist the change. It also suggests that change agents can influence readiness through their choice of strategies to introduce and implement organizational changes.
Researchers in organizational change and implementation science have been working for more than 15 years to develop means to accurately assess organizational and individual change readiness. They have not settled the question!
However, below are some sample questions from two change readiness assessments, that have consistently been noted in research as valid and reliable. Valid scales measure what they say they measure, while reliable scale indicate that people consistently interpret the questions in the same way.
Plus, both are freely available (see links below.)
One assessment tool conceptualizes readiness at the organizational level, asking people to reflect broadly on people or situations across the organization. The other frames readiness at the individual level, asking people to reflect on themselves and their own experiences. (While some feel organizational or team readiness is simply the aggregate of individual readiness, others suggest it is not and can differ at the team or organizational level. My suggestion is to review the scales to see which would likely provide the greatest insight, for the least amount of effort for your situation.)
Organizational Change Readiness Scale Example
The Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) scale is 12 questions. (It refers to commitment rather than willingness, and efficacy rather than capability.) Some sample questions from this scale are below:
Willingness
People who work here are committed to implementing this change.
People who work here will do whatever it takes to implement this change.
People who work here want to implement this change.
Capability
People who work here feel confident that the organization can support people as they adjust to this change.
People who work here feel confident that they can handle the challenges that might arise in implementing this change.
People who work here feel they can coordinate tasks so that implementation goes smoothly.
Individual Change Readiness Scale Example
The Organizational Change Recipients’ Beliefs Scale (OCRBS) is 24 questions that aim to uncover perspectives on five dimensions of readiness. We can loosely categorize these dimensions as related to willingness (need for change, fit of change, leader commitment, anticipated benefits) and capability (confidence in ability to change.) For an in-depth example of how this scale could be used and interpreted, see the Nebraska Department of Health’s write up of their use of the OCRBS survey in a pilot project.
Willingness
This change will benefit me.
We need to change the way we do some things in this organization
The majority of my respected peers are dedicated to making this change work.
The top leaders in this organization are “walking the talk.”
Capability
I can implement this change in my job.
I have the capability to implement the change that has been initiated.
I believe we can successfully implement this change.
In sum
Change complexity is somewhat of a complex topic!
However, breaking it down into component parts of change impact and readiness can make it more manageable concept.
That’s important because understanding the complexity created by workplace change is essential for effectively navigating through it to achieve desired outcomes.
By assessing both the change impact and readiness of the organization, impacted teams, and individuals, to take it on, we can anticipate challenges, prioritize resources, and set realistic expectations for the change journey.
While evaluating change impact and readiness may not be an exact science, employing practical tools and gathering perspectives from a representative group of stakeholders can provide valuable insights. By taking these steps, organizations can pave the way for smoother transitions and increase the likelihood of successful change implementation.
References
Armenakis, A. A., Bernerth, J. B., Pitts, J. P., & Walker, H. J. (2007). Organizational Xhange Recipients' Beliefs Scale: Development of an assessment instrument. The Journal of applied behavioral science, 43(4), 481-505.
Caldwell, S. D. (2013). Are change readiness strategies overrated? A commentary on boundary conditions. Journal of Change Management, 13(1), 19-35.
Creasey, T. (2024a, January 8). Defining change impact. Prosci.
Change Blast Radius. IdeaLeap. (n.d.). https://idealeap.com/downloads
Eden, Colin, and Fran Ackermann. Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management. Sage, 2013.
Groulx, P., Johnson, K., & Harvey, J.-F. (2023). Team Readiness to Change: Reflexivity, Tenure, and Vision in Play. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 0(0).
Miake-Lye, I. M., Delevan, D. M., Ganz, D. A., Mittman, B. S., & Finley, E. P. (2020). Unpacking organizational readiness for change: an updated systematic review and content analysis of assessments. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1), 1-13.
Neeley, T., & Leonardi, P. (2022). Developing a Digital Mindset. Harvard Business Review, 100(5-6), 50-55.
Rousseau, D. M., & ten Have, S. (2022). Evidence-based change management. Organizational Dynamics, 51(3), 100899.
Sirkin, H. L., Keenan, P., & Jackson, A. (2005). The hard side of change management. HBR’s 10 Must Reads on Change, 99.
Street, C. T., & Gallupe, R. B. (2009). A proposal for operationalizing the pace and scope of organizational change in management studies. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 720-737.
Shea, C. M., Jacobs. S. R., Esserman, D. A., Bruce, K., Y Weiner, B. J. (2014). Organizational readiness for implementing change: a psychometric assessment of a new measure. Implementation Science, 9, 7.
Wong, W. (2022, February 9). Psychological Contract: Factsheets. CIPD.