Those affected need to understand these reasons before they can begin the process of change.

All change is preceded by events that are perceived to be problems or issues for the business or for part of it. Change programmes frequently focus exclusively on the change that is necessary but give scant regard for explaining the reasons that necessitate it. But the starting point for enlisting people to change is helping them to really understand what is driving change, and what the impact might be if change is postponed. When people truly see what the problem is, they are much more likely to start the process of change themselves.

Only people who must live with the consequences of change can do the changing.

The starting point for change is to recognise that we all feel some sense of anxiety about change. Psychologists recognise that change which we initiate and control is less threatening than change that is imposed on us and about which we have little choice. The challenge for organisations is how, authentically, to give its people a role in defining change and in controlling its implementation, while not, simultaneously abandoning management's key role.

Organisational changes (policies, procedures, technology, processes) are the easy part; the internal changes that people must make are much harder.

People have to let go of the past in order to move forward. Abandoning what is familiar and comfortable is always traumatic. William Bridges^* talks about the "grieving" that people must go through, and grieving is not too emotive a concept for what sometimes has to happen. Change projects must begin with acknowledging and managing this letting-go process.

People have been working together before you or we as change agents came along. Strong group loyalties need to recognised.

Teams, Divisions, Country groups: ignore them at your peril. When groups feel under threat from change, it's quite natural for them to reinforce the natural barriers that separate them (the "believers") from the non-believers outside the group. These tendencies need to be understood and turned to advantage or else misunderstandings will get in the way of change.

Chief Executives need to lead from the front and support those striving to change.

So often we've seen change superimposed from "on-high" without any active leadership from the senior management of the organisation. We can say categorically that such change is effectively a way to guarantee failure. Management's key job is leadership. Yet leadership does not mean simply "beating the drum" from a distance. Its key element is the active definition of vision, goals and outcomes, coupled with the genuine and active support of and engagement with those defining and implementing the nuts and bolts of change.

 
Leaders can and should emerge from every level in the organisation.

Leadership is a substance with a few unusual properties: it often emerges where it's least expected; it thrives on being being passed around; and it can wither without the overarching support of one or two key people committed to ensuring that it doesn't disappear. Leadership is therefore more than the Chief Executive's job, but without the Chief Executive actively cultivating leaders, it's less like to happen. And without leadership in multiple places, real change isn't likely.

Without a clear view of the destination, people will reasonably question what the journey is for.

Developing as clear view of the destination is a crucial early step in managing successful change. Visioning shouldn't be a theoretical exercise, nor should it be one that is skimped on. Depending on the magnitude and urgency of change and the scope that it addresses, developing a vision and strategy can be short (days or a few weeks) or much longer (weeks or months).