How Do We Test the 'Temperature' of the Business?

There are various techniques that can be used to test the temperature of the business and in particular the stakeholder groups that have been identified using the tools described earlier. A number of different types of survey tool can be used to capture information about attitudes and behaviours. Figure 1 illustrates some of the different types that can be used.

 

Figure 1: Testing the temperature.

The techniques that combine both qualitative and quantitative outputs can be very useful indeed. So, for example, a survey could be constructed that requires the respondent to indicate their perspective on the change process by answering questions based on the Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). In addition, free text boxes can be used to allow the respondent to provide a more in-depth response around particular issues or concerns. Analysing these responses will provide a good indication of the issue types and the strength of feeling or importance surrounding these.

This kind of survey works well in a Web-based format. The results provide a preliminary indication of any issues and/or concerns and allow a judgment to be made in respect of the position of individuals/groups on the resistance to commitment continuum. It may then be appropriate, particularly with the significant stakeholders, to probe these issues in more detail. This is usually best done in the form of focus groups or one-to-one interviews but can also be performed using Web-based tools such as discussion forums.

Examples of these approaches, linked to case illustrations, are described later. It is also very important that appropriate ethical behaviour and standards are observed at all stages of the process. For example, if you say survey results will be treated in confidence, make sure they are.

The Global Dimension

The different segments of the stakeholder population within a global or multinational programme could have radically different views of the same change process. This means that the stakeholder engagement activity needs to address those different entities or jurisdictions, and you should not slip into the comfort zone of thinking that a very professional and comprehensive assessment of the situation in, say, the United Kingdom can then naturally map onto Japan, United States or other countries in continental Europe.

It may well be the case that data protection issues receive a more heightened degree of focus in Germany than they might in the United Kingdom. A global HR process that would allow, for example, someone in Italy to view the personal details of a German employee might cause enormous consternation. The degree of ambiguity around different aspects of the programme may raise concerns in one area, but be accepted as the norm in others.

You should investigate these factors thoroughly. It is stressed again that the stakeholder engagement process needs to be applied with equal rigour to a multi-jurisdiction programme. In this way, you get an informed opinion on issues in each of those jurisdictions. Subsequent efforts to address those issues can then be more closely tailored.