Should change be delivered centrally or locally?
For people who are managing change in organisations, the COVID-crisis could be the longest ever real-time learning experience if it wasn’t for the devastation it brings to families, economies and nations around the world.
The latest topic to be unearthed by this mutating crisis is the age-old debate between centralisation and localisation.
In the battle against COVID there is an emerging tension between central government running the show and local government making their own decisions. There is a direct parallel in large organisations about the delivery of complex change programmes. The arguments are well-rehearsed.
Centrally run programmes have clear sponsorship from the top – in COVID this means the Prime Minister’s own personal backing. With so much at stake, this brings with it, centralised data, centralised decision making and centralised budgets. It also brings a focus on the big picture and – when it works well – it enables joined-up thinking and a consistent approach.
But… and this is where the local leaders have a strong case.
Centrally driven programmes lack responsiveness to local needs. They don’t have room for local decision making. Often, they starve programmes of the energy that can be released by grass-roots involvement.
If you are delivering significant change, there is a constant challenge between the concentration of resources and the diffusion of those resources. For example, a centrally driven change programme has the weight and authority to encourage, cajole or even force people to comply. A locally driven programme, however, understands the needs and issues of the local community it is engaging. It accommodates local conflicts and pressures and can use language and approach which meets the needs of the specific department or team.
Of course, there are down-sides to programmes which are driven at the grass-roots level. Often, they lack strategic planning and frequently fall short on consistency and possibly even quality of delivery.
So, what is the answer? In the case of the COVID-crisis central governments and local governments are still wrestling over this conundrum. There are likely to be more twists and turns in this real-time learning experience. In the delivery of complex change programmes in organisations, it’s not a case of either one or the other. Both are right. The change programmes need to be tethered to the core objectives. They need senior-level sponsorship and a centralised strategy, change approach and a consistent approach to training. But they also need strong local leadership and local implementation. Probably the best approach is a combination of senior stakeholder engagement, including highly engaged change ambassadors, supported by a change network who can draw on localised knowledge and a good understanding of the local landscape.
Brotzen Mayne advises global and national organisations on delivering successful engagement in support of transformation programmes. The company has recently launched Communicate the Change, an on-line self-paced training programme. You can find out how it can help anyone responsible for delivering change to ensure the communication makes the people impacted, feel part of the outcome.
#changemanagement, #communcatingchange, #stakeholderengagement