Semi-structured interview transcript with Interviewee #6 (Industry: FMCG)
Interviewer(s): Interviewer
Interviewee(s): Interviewee F

Interviewer: Hi (participating change leader), thanks again for finding the time and energy to participate in our followup research on change leadership in your organization. This time you get to tell your side of the story, and complement your change recipients’ reported perceptions. Just as last time, all GDPR actions still apply, and this interview is being recorded. The only purpose for this meeting being recorded is the transcript which is required for the qualitative analysis, however neither the video nor the audio of this meeting will ever be publicly displayed, nor will your identity or the identity of your organization be disclosed. If you do not agree to this, please let me know and we will stop the recording and our interview. Other than that, today’s protocol is fairly simple. First, we will go through a round of so-called “quick- draw” questions, which is designed as a warm up exercise. I give you a quick question, and then you answer with one or two words max. After we complete this round, we move onto the actual stories, where I will ask you to recollect a certain incident, and to retell it to us in as much detail as you deem appropriate. I may ask you a followup question, but the general idea is to give you enough space to tell us a story without being interrupted. We are not interested in names, and in case some of these names find their way into our transcript, I’m going to redact them and use a generic term to replace them. If you agree with the aforementioned, let’s get started. What was the biggest challenge during implementation?

Interviewee F: Mindset of my boss

Interviewer: And if your organizational change project could be perceived as a story… Who was the protagonist?

Interviewee F: Talent development team lead by me. So can be me

Interviewer: Who was the antagonist?

Interviewee F: The old fashion system

Interviewer: What inciting moment motivated the protagonist to start the journey (the what if…)?

Interviewee F: The program as it was designed and run was not having the expected results, was seeing as no impactful and organization wanted to change it

Interviewer: What was the biggest conflict?

Interviewee F: Conflict with superior (my boss)

Interviewer: What would be the genre of this story?

Interviewee F: Tragicomedy

Interviewer: What would be the moral of this story?

Interviewee F: Change can happen despite the person in power

Interviewer: What was the dark inversion of this story (good gone bad, or bad gone good)?

Interviewee F: Loss of common sense, due to high pride not being able to see the reality

Interviewer: What is your most frequently used metaphor?

Interviewee F: for this situation? If you cannot open the door, find window(s)

Interviewer: What is your biggest revelation?

Interviewee F: Personal agendas are more important that organizational impact

Interviewer: Talk me through an anecdote which demonstrates how change recipients were behaving when they had no knowledge of the upcoming organizational change.

Interviewee F: Well you could think of a traditional post-transition rich corporation where people have big offices and everyone enjoys their workday as an excuse for being paid to socialize. A lot of these people weren’t capable of doing much work at a high level anyway…

Interviewer: Could you recall how the knowledge of organizational change was initially started?

Interviewee F: When I joined, there were few Talent development programs graduate entries, and leaders on different level. I was told that all the programs could be changed, improved, to feel free to learn and explore and propose improvements. That is what I did with the one that I learned from the organization that was the weakest one - Graduate program. It was designed centrally, local units were struggling to implement it in the steps that were required and not at all able to reach the targets that they were supposed to (retention, promotion). Following initial screening and interviews with HRMs in the countries, and my TD team, I started to work on the flexible solution for graduate program as the highest priority. My boss was declaring herself as being very supportive of adaptation and change, therefore I wanted to create the few proposals before involving her more into the process. That was a mistake - the declarative openness to change was not real. She “called out” on me on a Talent team meeting, saying that she heard we are changing the graduate program and to present what we are doing. I presented draft version of few options, and there the difficult situation happened.

Interviewer: How did you articulate the “awakening” moment where the organizational change was formally initiated?

Interviewee F: There was a regular team meeting when the superior (she knew about what we do because of internal gossiping systems) asked what we were doing on the topic, what was going on. I started to talk about how we plan to improve it, while her idea was to check if we started activities as they have been designed originally (by her).

Interviewer: How did change recipients express doubt towards the change project?

Interviewee F: Aggressively. When ideas were presented how to change the program, and offer few options, the superior went completely crazy. My superior was aggressive - I remain with that. Aggressive in her approach to me and later when we had another meeting to my team member as well.

Interviewer: Could you recall an anecdote of how you addressed this challenge?

Interviewee F: Naively, I was enthusiastic that we would be improving

Interviewer: Talk me through an example of growing reluctance to accept the change.

Interviewee F: Here it could be the fact that she continued to be aggressive on the meeting with my team members, calling out my team member “how come you give up on our program”. After that, noone wanted to talk anything to change from my team members, as they didnt want to get into that kind of conversation with my superior.

Interviewer: Who was challenging you the most?

Interviewee F: My superior.

Interviewer: How did you manage to achieve “acceptance”?

Interviewee F: I didn’t. I pulled back shocked by the behavior. I went back to the team and we decided to conduct wider research on the satisfaction with this program in the organization, beyond the initial information we had from our internal stakeholders. We made thorough analyses and written proposal

Interviewer: What exactly did you communicate to change recipients?

Interviewee F: At the end, I haven’t communicated the whole scope of change, but focused that what we want to do is smaller adjustments. Than the ego was satisfied and we were supported to go ahead.

Interviewer: Could you recall how change recipients experimented with available knowledge after accepting change?

Interviewee F: Honestly, I think they still believed the “old” was… was better. But the “old” way was developed and pushed by that person (my superior)

Interviewer: What would you say was the moment of “big change” that initiated this positive change in attitudes of change recipients?

Interviewee F: When I approached it that is “just small adjustments” and not conceptual change which it was. I was doing things “under the radar”, which was accepted but I never got recognition for good job we have done. Because you know how this organization works - unless you make huge fuss about it, its like you didn't do anything. So this way of implementing improvements was good for my team (inclusion) and organization (improvements) but costed me career in the company.

Interviewer: Who did you reach out to first when experimenting after this “big change”?

Interviewee F: I gained allies in the users of the program - country HRMs

Interviewer: Could you recall an anecdote of how these events went?

Interviewee F: Strong allies were in the countries - HRMs. But no one wanted to be on the radar of superior. My team wanted to change things, believed that it should be different (as well as HRMs) BUT... superior had lot of power and very aggressive behaviour that froze people.

Interviewer: What exactly did you communicate to your change recipients after they expressed doubt for the second time?

Interviewee F: I downplayed the impact of changes even more, so that recipient would not feel threatened.

Interviewer: Could you recall who was the loudest and how you addressed these comments?

Interviewee F: My peers were on her side and her colleagues in (country) that are in TA. I think the info that we are dramatically planning things to change came from that TA-1 in (country) as I shared my perspective that things could be done differently there.

Interviewer: Talk me through how you handled this second round of growing reluctance among change recipients.

Interviewee F: We were talking with countries, building up the scenarios that make most sense and keep the most of the previous legacy. So in a way, keep what is good and adopt where needed. They were very useful and helpful, working closely and being very supportive.

Interviewer: What were the biggest obstacles during this stage?

Interviewee F: Stupidity and ego.

Interviewer: Could you recall the most difficult conversation you’ve had to manage during this phase?

Interviewee F: This phase was easier as I learned what is important to the beast. I learned not to talk too much to my superior and tell her only what she wanted to hear. Not what I really thought about it and what all needs to change. I kept on minimizing the impact on her outstanding program that she developed and because “countries are not able to be as good as she was” we need to allow them to build capabilities to be able to be on the same level (as her) in the future.

Interviewer: Could you recall an anecdote covering the regression of change recipients from the stage of accepting change towards resisting change again.

Interviewee F: I didn’t want to give up because of the team, as they were totally mobilized to do good for the organization. To simplify and to make a difference. I felt I have to find the way to stay with it, even if it’s not 100% what we wanted to achieve.

Interviewer: What were the most important insights from this stage in your opinion?

Interviewee F: I didn’t allow it to happen at all. I was limiting the amount of information provided.

Interviewer: Who was the most resilient and how did you handle this challenge?

Interviewee F: I handled it very badly. My team members were more resilient as they were used to the leadership style in that organization (I was new to the organization). I never talked to many more senior leaders but my superior. I was shocked by brutality and style, I felt frozen - never happened in my life to feel that way. I was totally surprised that someone of that seniority can behave like that. At the perf evaluation I was evaluated as not fully performing and told (by my superior) that I am collaborative, I am open minded, I have lot of knowledge but I am not using it to create legacy. I thought of course I am not, when I was treated as piece of shit by her. I was ready to press charges against her (mobbing) when the announcement was out that she is replaced by new Talent director. Not many conflicts, as after those 2 sessions I was not able to find my stability in the relationship with her.

Interviewer: How did you manage to achieve it and what were the early signs of them experiencing reawakening?

Interviewee F: Not sure that reawakening ever happened. I think there was enough assurance that the main idea or principle that was implemented is still alive.

Interviewer: Who was your strongest ally at this stage?

Interviewee F: My team.

Interviewer: What were the first signs of successful transformation with change recipients?

Interviewee F: More flexibility in the graduate program, more people engaged in it

Interviewer: What is the main point you managed to get across?

Interviewee F: Simplicity and impact

Interviewer: What do you think is the most important thing to highlight here?

Interviewee F: I learned that before implementing change, I must sense who the change will impact the most and what is their true feelings about it. Not only declarative saying, but how are they personally linked with it and what do they want to achieve. OR what will keep them satisfied.

Interviewer: OK, I think we got everything, thanks again for taking the time to do this.

Interviewee F: Sure thing, have a nice day!