3. Talk to other people: Stakeholder engagement is overly talked about, yet underutilized. The key stakeholders for a company are usually the shareholders/investors, customers, suppliers, employees, and government (due to setting regulations). By engaging what seem to be non-key stakeholders, companies can address gaps in their understanding and better see future trends that will impact their business. One formal way of doing this is creating advisory panels that meet annually or more often to provide input on your company’s upcoming business strategy and products/services. Insular thinking leads to insular results.
When concerns about DuPont’s genetically modified seeds were expressed in the late 1990s, the company created a Biotech Advisory Board to help guide decisions on biotechnology developments. The advisory panel was moderated by the Keystone Center. Information was made publically available online.
4. Listen to chatter: Every change has positive and negative aspects for employees. Behind many reservations are insights on how to better manage change. Asking for employee feedback is a critical success factor and a subtle tool for winning them over. Engaging individuals in the change process will create more rapid adoption. People own what they help create.
Along with initiatives to reduce the company’s footprint, DuPont also supported volunteer activities including certified wildlife habitats at many sites and a program called “Clear into the Future” in its headquarters community of Wilmington, Del., to encourage employees to learn more about environmental issues associated with the Delaware Estuary as well as volunteer with local organizational efforts like stream clean-ups and tree plantings. These types of things helped connect employees directly to why the company was looking to change.
5. Lead and engage other leaders: Leadership support is one of the most widely recognized critical success factors in any organizational change effort. When initiating organizational change for sustainability establishing a network of sustainability change agents throughout the organization is critical. The first step is gaining CEO support, then business unit support, by establishing a strategic change board or committee, and working groups within each of the business units. The most effective sustainability leaders will also be the great change leaders.
In 1993, when DuPont’s then CEO, Ed Woolard, was looking to ensure that environment and sustainability were embedded into the company, he moved the VP of the DuPont Chemicals business to take over responsibility for leading the work to implement the transformation. This sent the message that the work was about transforming the businesses and not just about reducing the footprint of the company’s operations. As a business leader, Paul Tebo had the credibility to work closely with the business leaders to drive the important changes needed to achieve the voluntary commitments. In 2004, Linda Fisher became the first Chief Sustainability Officer named in a publicly traded company. Showing DuPont’s leadership and sustainability’s potential to be a game-changer early on.
In order to transform, companies cannot rely on goodwill or the simple fact that change is required. As the case with DuPont, to implement sustainability successfully requires deep organizational change management. Creating formal roles and teams for sustainability transformation that manage change on an ongoing basis sets the course for successful change transformation. It is impossible to predict which stakeholders will have the insight that supports your business in being an industry leader or prevents your business from failing. That requires your company to maintain a diverse set of close relationships.
Acknowledgments for input in this article to Dawn Rittenhouse, Director, Sustainable Development, DuPont; Tara Stewart, Public Relations, DuPont; Sarah Shanley Hope, Executive Director, Alliance for Climate Education; and Mike Clement, Managing Partner, Strait Insights, LLC.
This article raises some good
This article raises some good points about inspiring culture change, however it does leave out one of the most powerful ways to accelerate social change, which is through recognition and appreciation.
Recognition provides positive feedback for behaviours that you want to see more of. Recognition also helps communicate the values of an organization while reinforcing the organization's commitment to these ideals and behaviours.
Tony, I agree with your
Tony, I agree with your point. There were only so many points I could make in 2 pages. I decided to focus more on why it is important to make the case for change and how planned change is integral to a company becoming more sustainable. The persistence of communications was a story to use to share the ideas. Both in theory (academia) and practice (within organizations) there is a disconnect between strategy and (organizational) change management. Effective communication is one of the key tools for managing the change.
I did a study covering 20 years of DuPont's sustainability transformation story. As you mentioned awards, rewards and incentives were a critical success factor(CSF)— both monetary and recognition. On a similar note (of CSFs) I found if possible it is always great to make the success/ROI of the project part of all the key stakeholders' performance goals for the year (measure it so we can manage it). The 2010 case study is posted on my site http://www.scotholliday.com/publications.html
Fantastic write up! This
Fantastic write up! This type of thinking is going to be king over the next few years. Organizations are rapidly coming to the realization that they need to change, but understanding how to change effectively is still a challenge. You hit the nail on the head with the underlying theme: communication is key. People are far more likely to embrace change if they are confident that they can influence it and will be positively affected by it; the more they understand the though process behind the new strategy and the ways in which the organization will be executing that strategy, the more confidence they will have in the strategy. I'm bookmarking this one and I'll surely come back to it a time or two.
Caitlin, Thanks for the
Caitlin, Thanks for the applause. When a project, initiative or strategy is important it is worth having dedicated folks working to manage the change. It does double the odds of successful change. I aim to write more pieces soon. I work with several organizations. Once I have another case study example to highlight some ideas, I will voice some more ideas.
In case you are looking for the foundational ideas you can tailor to your own work here are two of the best thinkers I work to emulate (in terms of methodology and having advised the most organizations): Daryl Conner http://www.connerpartners.com/daryl-conner and John Kotter http://www.kotterinternational.com/our-principles/changesteps/changesteps
Fantastic write up! This
Fantastic write up! This type of thinking is going to be king over the next few years. Organizations are rapidly coming to the realization that they need to change, but understanding how to change effectively is still a challenge. You hit the nail on the head with the underlying theme: communication is key. People are far more likely to embrace change if they are confident that they can influence it and will be positively affected by it; the more they understand the though process behind the new strategy and the ways in which the organization will be executing that strategy, the more confidence they will have in the strategy. I'm bookmarking this one and I'll surely come back to it a time or two.
"70 percent chemically-based
"70 percent chemically-based and 30 percent bio-based materials"? I know Dupont dropped their motto "Better Things for Better Living Through Chemistry" because of public chemophobia - but bio-based "materials" are made of chemicals. Every THING - whether plant, vegetable, mineral, man-made or naturally occurring - is made of chemicals. Dupont still excels at chemistry. As does nature. What you should have said is "petrochemical-based" vs bio-based.
G Adams, I understand your
G Adams, I understand your point. Thanks for keeping me on my toes. I like the idea that DuPont has gone from being a chemical company to a chemical and life sciences company, and worked to reduce the negative impacts of the whole life cycle of its products on the environment. E.g., producing soy protein based ink rather than petroleum based ink for use in printers (used by Epson and others.
Good article with the
Good article with the exception of the second sentence. There is nothing innate about an aversion to change. We are creatures of habit but that doesn't mean that we accept any culture as it is handed down to us. Humans mold cultural habits and make them their own as individuals and collectively. Humans are creatures of habit in the sense they need habits to make sense of the world, not that they hold onto their "old" habits just because they can't shake them. Habits can, and do, change as long as people continue the dialogue and lead by example.
Carlos, I think I see your
Carlos, I think I see your point that we are always changing in some ways. I will think about what aspect or level of change people may have more aversion to. When I think of aversion to change I recall failed multimillion dollar IT projects, laggard companies in an industry not innovating fast enough, and in general the difficulty many people have in understanding how their day to day work focus should change to align to the new 5-year plan at their organization/company. The issue may not be aversion to change but instead poor direction/guidance on which areas to change and how to incrementally move toward achieving the goals (determining the direction to move an organization and then at the right speed guiding people in that direction). If the case is that failed change is due to poor guidance, then the root issue may be leaders having difficulty determining the right strategy and how to guide their organization in implementing it. I guess as in medicine, with change management on a day to day basis, sometime you treat the symptoms, other times you treat the dis-ease. Regardless of the aversion factors, results show managing (organizational) change on average doubles the chance of successful change.