In the fourth post in our series on organization culture, we look at how to design and execute a successful culture change. Previous posts addressed the risks associated with toxic culture, defining culture, and the impact of toxic people have on culture.

Most organization transformations either result in new staffing requirements, employee positions deleted or changed, or some combination of all three. Getting the right person in a position where they have the greatest potential to contribute is a critical success factor when looking at long-term results.

The following article, by Richard L. Zdunkewicz of Acclaim Energy Advisors, should give us all pause, as we ponder our energy costs going forward.  With the increasing dependence on natural gas for electric power generation, is it time to reconsider changing the way you buy, consume, and most importantly waste the energy you are paying for? 

Wherever you come down on the science, politics, or social impact of global energy consumption, it is indisputable that organizations that improve the ratio of production-to-energy consumed improve their bottom line.  If they operate for profit, this is real ownership value and if they are a government agency or not-for-profit they can turn dollars saved into improved service delivery.  How big is the opportunity? The EPA reports that American business wastes 30% of the energy they consume¹.

Collective Impact is defined as “the commitment of a group of important actors from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific social problem.” The process of forming these initiatives involves building a strong foundation, initiating action, organizing for impact, and sustaining action. Common attributes of these projects include:

Your Change Team just completed a highly successful SAP implementation. Measureable benefits started early on and continue to flow in. You were given special recognition at the annual shareholder meeting. Today, you see in the Wall Street Journal that your company, second in its segment, is acquiring the third place firm. You stand by for a call to action by the CEO, but the phone never rings. You know that failure rates in these projects are between 50 and 85 percent. One KPMG study found that 83 percent of these deals hadn't boosted shareholder returns, while a separate study by A.T. Kearney concluded that total returns on M&A were negative.²   Sounds like a high risk proposition. What might you and your team’s role be in a merger-acquisition project? How might you get engaged?

As organization change practitioners for more than 35 years, we have witnessed admitted failures, claimed successes and, least often, real change that matters in a competitive marketplace. If we were to develop a scoresheet for these projects, it would have three major elements:

1. Change Project Delivery
2. Stickiness of the Change
3. Agility or the Ability to Keep Changing

According to Wikipedia, a disruptive change is an innovation that creates a new market by applying a different set of values, which ultimately (and unexpectedly) overtakes an existing market. It begs the question - why are some organizations capable of successful innovative change while others either fail to change or fail to recognize the opportunities. The potential economic impact cannot be overstated. According to the McKinsey Global Institute, two disruptive innovations - advanced robotics and cloud computing - have the potential to impact over $9 Trillion in global economic activity.