Canadian HR Reporter

CPHR Alberta Research: A Bigger Sample Size for Better Baseline Dan Boucher So much of business is comparative —it's rarely how good your bottom line is, but how good it is compared to your competitor. It follows that HR is compara- tive, too. Industry reports on compensation and benefi ts help HR professionals to fi nd cost savings for their organi- zation, or identify gaps that could be costing them in in- creased turnover. CPHR Alberta leads an innova- tive survey in Western Canada that is building benchmarks on a range of human re- sources topics. From Learning & Development budgets to HR Information Systems, the semi-annual HR Trends report delivers measurements that help businesses gauge how they stack up. In an era where 'the latest poll' can draw from an alarm- ingly small survey sample, the Western Canada HR Trends Report offers a refreshing difference: a baseline that is derived from thousands of responses. HR professionals from CPHR Canada member associations in British Colum- bia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba consistently support the survey with re- sponse rates over 20%. In the survey that Alex An- drews references in the adjacent article, this robust response rate meant the dif- ference between simply an aggregate result for each province, versus segmenta- tion by over a dozen industry sectors and company size. Cross-tabulation within these surveys has uncovered trends that are helping businesses make more informed, data- driven decisions. Providing timely, accurate and relevant benchmarks for Canadian employers is only possible thanks to enthusi- astic participation from our members. By sharing these benchmarks publicly, we are contributing to raising the standard of HR in Canada and helping our country's econo- my to thrive. You can fi nd all of our HR Trends reports on the CPHR Alberta website. Dan Boucher is CPHR Alberta's Director of Research and Regulatory Affairs, where he leads a member-focused team dedicated to strengthening HR professional standards. www.cphrab.ca/research With the rate of technological growth, our era of informa- tion and the global economy, change is now the normal state of business. With all the transformation plans that companies face today, workplaces are constantly facing perpetual change initiatives. The exhaustion of change is lurking, intensifi ed by the natural tendency to distrust the change imposed from above. When this happens individuals can start to feel inadequate to the challenge, the demon of doubt creeps in, insecurity and paralysis increase, and we see declining rates of pro- ductivity, improvement, and quality of life. A recent CPHR Alberta HR Trends Report stated that more than a quarter of respondents (27%) report their organiza- tions are suffering from change fatigue, and another 41% say they are suffering from moderate fatigue. BUT WHAT ARE THE CAUSES? From an employee's perspective, employers struggle with change for many reasons. First, and far too often, we see poor design. There are failures in the management of processes underlying work (e.g., performance manage- ment systems), we rely on IT to magically solve problems and vehemently avoid behavioral changes that should be implemented. Second, management are horrible communicators. Change leaders must thoroughly explain initiatives, and allow employees to hear arguments for and against alter- natives. They must openly discuss the fears of employees to normalize the change. Individuals want to know that their concerns are heard and shared with others and that leaders acknowledge them. In addition, they want to know what support their leader will lend to help them through the transition stage. EMPLOYEE RESISTANCE TO CHANGE Diagnosing between poor design and lacklustre com- munication in an organization doesn't identify the cause of change fatigue among an organization's workforce. For employees, we can whittle resistance down to eight prin- ciple reasons. 1. Job security. It is not part of our nature to make changes that could be harmful to our current situation. In an organizational environment this means that certain em- ployees can resist technological change if their jobs are to be eliminated or reduced. From their perspective, change is harmful to their role within the organization. Without a well-thought-out design and communication strategy for change, leaders will face increased resistance. 2. What's in it for me? There is a common saying in the business world that managers get what they reward. Employees are going to reject the change when they do not see what's in it for them. When implementing a change process you have to ask yourself what is the benefi t of the change for the rest of the employees? Without a reward there is no motivation to support long-term change. This means that the compensation system should be modifi ed to complement the change management that is to be implemented and reinforce the right vital behaviours needed to effect the change. 3. Fear of the unknown. The less the organization knows about change and its impact on people, the more fearful they become. Leading change requires that no surprises arise. The organization needs to be prepared for change. In the absence of fl uent communication with leadership, rumors fi ll the space and sabotage any effort for change. 4. Peer pressure. The organization's stakeholders will resist change to protect the interests of the group. Some employees may resist change to protect their peers. Man- agers can resist change to protect their teams. All stake- holders need to connect the change back to their own safety and benefi t. Without a clear sense of what's in it for me, they will resist change. 5. Culture of mistrust. Important organizational changes do not occur in a climate of mistrust. Trust, involves hav- ing faith in the intentions and behavior of others. Mutual mistrust will condemn a change initiative. Build a culture of trust! Walk the talk and be transparent. 6. Organizational politics. Some are resistant to change as a strategy to prove that the decision is wrong. They can also be resistant to show that the leader in charge of the change process is not fi t for the task. They are looking for- ward to seeing the process fail. 7. Fear of failure. Radical change in work may cause employees to doubt their ability to perform their tasks. The known is comfortable. Employees will resist these changes because they are worried and cannot adapt to new job requirements. 8. Bad approach. Sometimes it is not what a leader does but how she or he does it and this generates resistance to change. Resistance can occur because the changes are introduced in an unresponsive or inopportune way. KEEP IT SIMPLE TO SUCCEED The remedy to all of this is to simply reduce the number of initiatives. Easy, right? Well, it can be. Instead of focusing on large-scale transformational change, focus on timely improvements and, above all, discarding the notion that heroic leaders are needed to make sustained and signifi cant changes. If organizations really depended on substantial change from the top down, few would survive. By contrast, most organizations succeed because of small change efforts that begin at the middle and lower levels and are later noticed by top management. If the change is initiated from the fl oor, and everyone has a role, and the outcome is easily defi ned and attainable, the success of the change initiative will improve drastically. Alex Andrews, CPHR is a member of the HR leadership team for one of Canada's largest agricultural and construction equipment dealership groups where he oversees the organizational development and training programs. He can be reached at aandrews@rockymtn.com. The Cure for the Ever Changing Organization Alex Andrews, CPHR Change Fatigue

• Cover