Listen to this Podcast online
Listen to this Podcast on ITunes
Listen to this Podcast on Youtube
Read this Podcast Online
When too much is too much
As the world watches Hong Kong heave through transformation, it's timely that the leaders of change in the city's largest companies and organisations, met this week to discuss what's happening in thought leadership, best and emerging practice.
It was great fun, check it out!
With almost 100 tickets registered, the event quickly hit the waitlist and the lucky few that managed to score ticket, represented most industries and sectors including insurance, banking, telecommunications, retail, logistics, travel, engineering, FMCG, health, education and airlines.
Thanks to the fantastic Change Practice at Oliver James & Associates who hosted the event, the Hong Kong Change & Transformation Community of Practice were able to review some of the most pertinent questions on the minds of leaders and practitioners.
Where do you work and does your organisation have a change practice?
Considering this community of practice is based in Hong Kong, perhaps it's no surprise that 85% of delegates work in financial services, what is somewhat surprising however is that only half benefited from a change practice in their organisations. This is a fast changing trend however as Hong Kong companies begin to recognise that in order to move from installation to implementation - we must to take a people-centred approach, and according to Oliver James Associates, the demand for change practitioners and transformation leaders has been consistently rising over the last 12 moths.
Preferred project framework and investment types?
Again perhaps it's no surprise that Agile is well presented at twice as common than compared to Waterfall projects. Anecdotally delegates note that whilst Agile is certainly popular, it's rarely done well and there is still some maturity to develop for most organisations. Interestingly half of project investment is in digital, with the remainder responding to regulatory or hygiene requirements. There appears to be a correlation between digital programs run in Agile and other programs preferring Waterfall.
How much capacity is there for more change?
It's these last three questions that are perhaps most revealing, exposing how much capacity there is for change, and how competent organisations and it's people leaders are at leading the change. A somewhat shallow bell-curve appeared with fewer people responding positively to all three questions than negatively. Most organisational and leadership change competency was listed as slightly negative at 2, whilst most delegates responded they could handle little or no more change in their organisations.
What features do you see in the data?
The capacity question is a common one, it speaks to Change Saturation and is a real risk for leaders to monitor; in particular when there is an appetite for large and fast-paced change or when keeping the organisation at the edge of effort for an extended period.
One philosophy states we should maintain change capacity below an agreed threshold to allow our people space to breathe and allow buffer for the natural peaks and troughs of effort that come through the week, month or year.
The flip side is to drive change so prolific, that it is no longer and event but the new normal, the idea that revolution is actually less effort than evolution.
Perhaps neither is right, and neither is wrong.
What do you think?