The Mythos team

All those involved in implementation processes accept the associated changes in their own way.

The introduction of a CRM system (Customer Relationship Management system) at a textile manufacturer primarily affects the marketing, sales and service departments, which will actively use this system.

• IT is also indirectly affected, as it is responsible for the implementation and functionality of the CRM system. Each of these areas perceives the change differently.
• Sales employees fear increasing transparency, as weak points in sales due to poor advice or dealing with unprofitable customers can be uncovered more quickly thanks to the complete documentation of their work.
• Others see it as a helpful tool to determine their customers’ wishes in terms of color and style preferences even more precisely.
• Marketing may be happy about the CRM system, as it has always been accused by sales of poor advertising campaigns and media selection, and now campaigns are more measurable and easier to plan.
• In the case of service employees, some fear better control of service processing, while others finally see their successful complaint and problem resolution rate documented.

Consequently, a change always has “winners” and “losers”. If there are more opportunity thinkers in your company, you will have more winners in the same situation than if there is a majority of pessimists who only see danger in everything.

The ratio of winners and losers is also determined less by the issue and more by the attitude of those involved. It is the individual perception (personal impact) that determines whether a change is seen as a potential threat or a potential opportunity.

And this is always a purely subjective perception. Either you ignore these perceptions or you take care of them by supporting them or trying to correct them in line with the agreed objectives. Simply being aware of this connection already generates effectiveness in implementation, which is why you should practice empathy as an implementation manager and put yourself in the shoes of the very different people involved and affected. In doing so, you should consider the following three aspects:

1. personal influence

Depending on the number of people affected by the implementation or change, outline the extent to which they are affected by the change personally or as a division/group, either for each individual or – if there are many people affected – for the relevant company divisions or groups. In other words, you deal with the question of how much influence the change will have in each case.

2. the perception of impact

In the second step, you check whether individuals or groups perceive the change as a threat or an opportunity. In other words, you try to determine the fundamental attitude of those affected towards personal development and progress. There are people who want to drive something forward because of their public and personal interests, while others do not want this and tend to see such changes as a threat.

3. the political network of effects

The last step is to examine the persons (groups) identified with regard to the network of interests between them. This will lead you to people (groups) who have a strong influence on others and at the same time are “on fire” for the change, as they see a high potential of opportunity for themselves personally. These are the relevant people you need to involve in your implementation process. You may be surprised how many people are involved that you don’t even need to worry about and that your KSPs (Key Success Persons) sometimes come from less obvious areas.

The implementation manager entrusted with the introduction of the CRM system has outlined the effect of the change on the people concerned and their own perception of it. He recognizes that the IT manager (person 2) is definitely an active lever, as he has a strong influence on both sales and marketing. However, the change does not have a major impact on him personally. He will integrate the CRM system into the existing IT landscape according to the specifications provided to him and does not see any major challenges here.

For Ms. Schulz, the service manager (person 3), the introduction of the CRM system will change a lot, as every activity in her department will now be documented and traceable for each person. However, she sees this as a great opportunity to better analyze customer complaints and investigate their causes and is fully behind this project.

Even if she herself has little influence on the other people involved and is only on good terms with the key account manager (person 4), the implementation manager definitely wants her or one of her confidants on the implementation team. Because such an appointment provides the necessary momentum.

In contrast, Mr. Groß (person 1), who is in charge of sales, sees this change as a major threat. He is very effective because he has a good relationship with his employees, especially the account managers, and is also friends with the key account manager.

According to management guidelines, the implementation manager must include three people from the sales department in his implementation team and selects those who are open to the project. At the same time, he considers which of Mr. Groß’s personal interests he must satisfy in order to prevent him from blocking the project or taking away the potential of the planned system through his objections.

To this end, he plans two things: firstly, he suggests that the Chief Marketing and Sales Officer, Mr. Winter, join the steering committee in order to already consider the product strategy requirements in the CRM system and, secondly, he considers a bonus for Mr. Gross and central sales employees for realized process efficiency in the sales cycle as part of the target system.

Implementation is often equated with “change”. In fact, it is also about change, but this should not mean turning those affected into participants per se and involving as many people as possible as early and intensively as possible.

The fact that everyone has to be involved does not automatically improve the implementation process – on the contrary: in my experience, it only makes it considerably less productive because unnecessary resistance is provoked in the first place. It takes a lot of time and energy to involve a lot of people and takes the speed out of the implementation process. In addition, it usually results in poor solutions because compromises are made, as everyone is fixated on their own personal contribution or status quo.

Habit often outweighs reason, i.e. a lot is done to keep things as they are, especially if there are no personal benefits to be gained from the changes.

It is therefore essential to involve people who give the project sufficient impetus. It is helpful to model the relevant people (groups) in a corresponding map of interests (see Fig. 1). When selecting the people to be involved, you should not only look at the top level of the hierarchy, but also take a look at the second and third tiers, especially when it comes to staffing (sub-)projects. It is precisely there that thinking and action is usually more strongly geared towards establishing new, innovative structures. Such a selection of people naturally generates irritation and resistance in the first row – which must be withstood.

Back to overview