On the surface this one looks fine.
Knowing WIFM seems like a core essential for getting participation.
Figure out what that is, communicate it and the change process should be good to go, right?
Maybe.
The problem lies in coming up with the “in its” in a way that feeds the process as a whole.
What really happens when practitioners and leaders think of communicating change in this way is that explanations come out condescending and political. Big change is not an individual effort. The answer to the WIFM question that would work for a given stakeholder may be detrimental for the change as a whole. And most change has more that is not for you, individual stakeholder, than for. Because most change has reduction or at least movement of space and people, most change has the need for training and development, change is a movement to a different end state which usually looks unlike the present (so there is no “in it” for the current you).
The WIFM communications and individual responses that I hear (from those who think this approach is a panacea, usually) are almost always hiding or sugar coating something. In fact the one on one sentences often begin with, “Well…”. A sure signal that some thought needs to go in to the response (hint the thought is not for “you” but to protect something at a higher level).
Come on this is silly semantics again isn’t it?
No and so I will give you a replacement-
WDIF Where do I fit?
- At what point will this individual have a chance to contribute their skill to the movement toward the end state? That honors their expertise.
- Do they genuinely fit in to the end state in some way? (thanks to new business models, layoffs, outsourcing and others there often is nothing “in it for you” individual stakeholder) This tells them whether they need to develop something, add or change behaviors or be trained in order to fit in later.
- Answering this helps to place them in relation to others at the end state. It signals, yes sometimes in a painful way, how the organization will be arranged in this new spot and who and what types of people will fit.
Because end states are a mix of what there is now, what will be changed and developed and what might not be useful I like the acronym. Saying it fast sounds like, “What if…”. What if there was this end state? Do you see where you fit? Enter CM’s adjustments to provide fit, maybe enter the wise stakeholder coming up with options not yet considered or enter a realistic assessment with nothing hidden from the stakeholder themselves.
New Change Management, the kind where the stakeholders are wise and you can’t slide things past them, must illustrate end states and show what resources fit. Doing so clearly reveals what does not fit. Smart change processes tweak, mold and adapt current people/resources into the end state. If that adjustment is not possible at the individual level then empathy and reason have to guide to and suggest other options. Stakeholders will often choose them on their own when they see there is no fit and there is nothing “in it” for them. That can often be the most positive individual change effort.
