How do members of your organization typically respond to change? We human beings certainly crave change when it comes to – for example – our fashions, home furnishings or car designs, yet we also are notorious at resisting change when it comes to facing new challenges, difficult tasks or moving outside of our comfort zone.

For companies, the financial implications of adapting or not adapting to change can be significant. In 2006, a press release discussing the book Built to Change: How to Achieve Sustained Organizational Effectiveness co-authored by Edward Lawler suggested that “the ultimate competitive advantage in today’s business environment is the ability to change.” Certainly this rings true amidst the current torrent of change. Yet, as The People Agenda suggests, “there is a wealth of empirical data that point to the fact that organisations struggle to address change effectively.”

Can the use of performance management technology help organizations be more adaptable? In the report Managing Employee Performance Through the Down Cycle, David Creelman identifies the main advantages of a technology based performance management system as “better decisions,” “more maneuverability,” and “tighter control.” In essence, he – and others before him – suggest that the ability to accurately assess employee's strengths, performance levels and training needs, combined with the capacity to effectively communicate priorities and monitor progress against goals helps an organization to “change directions faster.” Ultimately, having up to date performance data available will help decision makers assess when a change in direction is needed in a timely fashion.

Similarly, PriceWaterhouseCoopers identifies “broad strategies” that “are essential components of effective change,” two of which are “clear, concise and consistent communications” and “meaningful measures.” Effective communication of performance expectations and accurate tracking of performance measures is facilitated by the use of technology based performance management systems. An American Management Association survey with 1,369 global respondents showed that more representatives from high performing organizations answered yes to the question “we keep current with state-of-the-market technological advances,” than did respondents from low performing organizations. Likewise, more respondents from higher performing organizations indicated that employees had greater clarity about “performance expectations.”

Ironically, change is a component of any new software implementation. Users are more likely to accept a new system if they feel that it will benefit them and make their work easier. As a result, companies need to allocate resources to change management when new technology is introduced. Survey participants in the CedarCrestone 2007-2008: HR Systems Survey, 10th Annual Edition indicated that their companies allocated 13% of the budget for new technology towards “other (BPI, change management, training).”

Communicating with users early to define their needs will help in the technology selection process. Training helps users learn the new system and understand how they will benefit from the technology. Open communication before, during and after the implementation will allay any concerns and help ease transition challenges. Dana Jarvis, adjunct professor at Duquesne University suggests that organizations build upon the strengths of the current process, “partner with employees to create the system” and promote the benefits of the system. While HR and Technology: Impact and Advantages recommends that “the system should be tested extensively by end-users,” and be branded in alignment with “the employer and company brand.” When it comes to all HR technology implementations, CedarCrestone 2007-2008 survey respondents identified a lack of upper leadership support, neglect of process re-design, “access” or challenges related to the vendor themselves as “reasons for lack of success”.

As we are reminded by a quote from Heraclitus 540 BC - 480 BC “Nothing endures but change.”

References:

Bisson and Barcelona. “Change is Not the Enemy.” Press release [http://www.edwardlawler.com]. February 8, 2006.

CedarCrestone. “CedarCrestone 2007-2008: HR Systems Survey, 10th Annual Edition.”
CedarCrestone [www. cedarcrestone.com]. 2008.

Clayton, Peter (host), et al. How to Build a High Performance Organization. American Management Association Presentation, Obtained, 2008.

Creelman, David. Managing Employee Performance Through the Down Cycle. Creelman Research, 2008.

Jarvis, Dana. “Dear Workforce: How Do We Change From Informal to Formal Performance Management? Workforce Management [www.workforce.com]. March 6, 2006.

Parry, Emma, et al. “HR and Technology: Impact and Advantages.” Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development [www.cipd.co.uk]. 2007.

“Quotations by Subject: Change” [www. quotationspage.com]. Obtained May 4, 2008.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers. The people agenda: Optimising Performance at the Front Line. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2007.