Which comes first -- actions or attitudes? Some managers believe that a successful change should start with a thorough explanation of the reasons or rationale for the change, in order to modify attitudes and create a favorable atmosphere in which a change would be easier to accomplish and sustain. Others believe that a success change must start by determined actions that will demonstrate as quickly as possible the value of the change and, in turn, this will shape the opinions and attitudes of the people involved in the change, making them more receptive to it. A couple of years ago I was head of the Human Resources function in an international online gaming group. The company consisted of two big divisions an online marketing division dealing with promoting the group brands, and a research and development (R&D) division, which provided development and platform maintenance service for the whole group.

The R&D division was divided into professional teams, according to the software environments that they were developing. The company was facing some difficult challenges. On the one hand, the company, operating in a very competitive industry, was reliant on its ability to constantly develop new games and new features to existing games. Such developments required substantial effort and time in terms of planning and development. On the other hand, the growing inventory of online operating software (also known as software in production), required large amounts of ongoing maintenance and incremental enhancements. The latter developments were very tempting for R&D engineers to focus their time on, as they were both urgent and crucial for the regular operation of the groups websites, and quite easy and short to implement in the case of the enhancements. However, by spending their time on these activities R&D was drifting, in a semi-conscious manner, towards a situation in which big innovative projects of new games and software were being delayed indefinitely. Furthermore, the people who took the decision on what and where to focus priorities were the team managers who were not always knowledgeable enough about the business priorities.

It became clear to the group CEO and to the CTO (chief technology officer), in charge of all R&D and IT that a change was desperately needed. Following the best practice set out by other organizations our CEO, a very charismatic and dominant character, decided that R&D should split into two parallel development lines one line would be called Projects and deal only with long-term development projects, such as new games or substantial software. This line would continue to be led by the current two team managers and have a strategic importance in the further development of the group. The other line was to be called Service Delivery, and would be in charge of maintenance and small, quick software implementations and features. This team would be headed by new managers, and due to its critical role in the ongoing operation of the business would consist of the most experienced engineers, the one with the broadest knowledge of the company software inventory and platform. Th CEO was very clear that this change was crucial and urgent. For him there was no time to lose in carrying out the restructure. There were several lessons learned from this change. The first lesson was that it is not enough that the CEO feels the urgency for the change. It also has to be appreciated and understood by the people about to go through the change. In these early stages of implementation, the two team managers about to become project team managers had very little to gain from the change they were about to lose some of the best of their team members to the service delivery team, as well as some of the high-profile maintenance work, which they had been doing. Although these team managers were being pushed hard by the CTO (pushed himself by the CEO) to implement the change, it was clear that they were dragging their feet in m9ving to the new structure and supporting it in front of their teams. There was a real risk of this change slowly vanishing, or a high-volume collision between the CEO and these managers a collision that would not end without casualties. At this point, there was a clear need for HRs help in communicating the need for change and creating a coalition of managers to ensure consistency in the words and actions. To achieve these goals, we had to go back and consult with the managers, not only on how to implement the change, but also on why the change was needed. This required a lot of debate and slowed down the change implementation significantly, but after the discussions were complete, we had not only gained a deeper understanding of the challenges that the change was facing, but also strong support for the change from the managers who had originally opposed it so strongly. This brings us to a second lesson learned the success of change depends not only on a strong strategy, but also on implementation based on deep understanding of the organization about to change. Following inputs from managers and HR, several changes were made in staffing the teams and in the communication plan, which proved to be extremely valuable in the implementation of the change. These discussions helped us to understand particular difficulties that team members were having due to the change and helped us to prepare for them in advance, the importance of which could not be exaggerated. We learned that one of the keys to starting a change plan is ensuring that every team member affected by the change feels that he/she has been considered during the design stage of the change. Even if the end outcome is not ideal for each individual, the feeling that they are consulted, or at least thought of, provides a sense of fairness that is vital for willing participation and cooperation in the change implementation. Key lessons: The importance of meticulous and well-consulted design, the need to create a sense of urgency, the need to create a coalition supporting the change, and the importance of making sure that all stakeholders are considered during the design of the change.

Identify and describe your recommendations for HR in the initial stages of planning for the change? Be specific and provide detail Being this is an international company, identify the cultural barriers that may have impacted this change.