Interventions with Impact
Introduction
There is an odd feature in contemporary discourse whereby statistics stick around, even when they are not correct. You’ve heard some of these before such as the myth that we only use 10% of our brains. Perhaps statistics like that one are hard to shake because it’s an easy-to-remember number, it has lasting impact, and it makes storytelling fun. Indeed, that might also be why the assertion that 70%-of-all-organizational-change-fails never seems to go away. It is also not correct (Huges, 2011), but does have the advantage of being an easy-to-recall number, is attention-grabbing, and sets the ground for the remainder of the consultant’s talk on why this time it’s going to be different! Honest.
An additional factor keeping this myth alive and well has to do with the experience so many of us share. That is, the experience of suffering through interventions to support organizational change that were poorly planned, misaligned, a band-aid solution, or some other categorize-able reason for failure. For those of us working in the business of developing, designing, and delivering organizational interventions, this presents an excellent learning opportunity.
How can we design interventions to have better and lasting impact?
The research
Interventions on the whole have a bad reputation. And, as much as it pains me to say, that reputation is sometimes warranted. “Reviews and meta-analyses of the effectiveness of organizational interventions … have shown inconsistent results,” (Nielsen et al., 2023, p.2). On the one hand, intended outcomes are not always achieved because organizations themselves are complex. Conversely, interventions have many moving parts and getting them to individually do their job well, and to then collectively come together well is no small feat.
In the case of transferable skills (rather than technical) like interpersonal or intrapersonal ones, the picture becomes further complicated. Take so-called soft skills for example, where research suggests that “training transfer remains a significant and complex challenge, and there is limited consensus around how, when, and why learning from training initiatives is transferred to the job,” (Hamzah et al., 2024). Oh, dear.
Despite the challenges, be they real or over-blown, we can always count on scientists to come up with solutions. A discussion paper entitled, “How to design, implement and evaluate organizational interventions for maximum impact: the Sigtuna Principles,” (von Thiele Schwarz et al., 2021) was written with the aim of doing just that. The authors came up with practical solutions for both researchers and organizations, with a keen eye on keeping the process transdisciplinary, participatory, and iterative. I shall summarize the paper’s recommendations in the section below, however if possible I recommend you read the entire paper. You can find the full reference in the Works Cited section below.
The 10 Principles
The following are ten principles that were developed as a way to capture the potential for transformative change. These principles can act as a guide for researchers when they are designing, implementing, and evaluating organizational interventions.
1) Establish and enable active engagement and participation among key stakeholders
2) Understand starting points and objectives in context and situation
3) Align the intervention with organizational objectives that already exist
4) Make the program logic clear to everyone
5) Prioritize intervention activities by considering the balance of effort-gain
6) Work with existing practices, processes, and mindsets
7) Observe, reflect, and adapt iteratively using one cycle to inform the next
8) Develop organizational learning capabilities
9) Evaluate the interaction between intervention, process, and context
10) Transfer knowledge beyond the specific situation
Let’s look at each principle and consider what that might look like in a work setting. Imagine an intervention that was not impactful in your experience. Which principle(s) could help make it better were you to do it again?
Principle 1 - Active engagement
Employees are not passive recipients in an intervention, and the design must reflect this. Key stakeholders must actively shape, manage, and own the interventions. Participation matters during all stages including design, implementation and evaluation of interventions. Similarly, this participation must involve managers and employees at all levels of the organization as it will impact all. Likewise, senior management support and ownership of the intervention is crucial to its success.
Principle 2 - Starting Points and Objectives
In understanding the context and situation in which the intervention will take place, it’s imperative to consider things like the work systems, working conditions, history, challenges, and problems, in addition to goals (implicit and explicit) and the intended outcomes. As I wrote above, organizations are complicated and taking steps to understand it will improve the impact of an intervention. It is also important to think about how you will develop that understanding. If nothing else, this principle will help to prevent the delivery of interventions that an organization does not need.
Principle 3 - Aligning with the Organization
Organizations are not neutral spaces, rather an orchestra of culture, habits, norms, and stories. As such, at the very early stages of intervention development keep this in full view. Aligning demonstrates how the intervention will contribute to outcomes the organization deems important. It reduces contradictions that sometimes result from competing objectives. Likewise, it reduces potential for unintended side effects that can occur when, as an example, the intervention functions to benefit one group at the expense of another. Also, alignment is essential to keep the actions going once the researchers have moved on.
Principle 4 - Clarify Intervention Logic
In any project management framework there’s always a reserved space for goal-setting (and thus, clearly laying-out those goals), but sometimes the communication gets glossed over after the first meeting. It’s necessary to communicate well the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ of an intervention to provide a sense of connectedness and clarification on value. How is the intervention connected to other goals/outcomes/future imaginings? Why is the intervention design valuable in that framing? This is also a useful point in considering co-creation with key stakeholders. By getting their input, the program logic will be better informed from the off.
Principle 5 - Balance Effort-Gain
A prioritization of activities will inevitably become part of the final design/delivery stages of an intervention. Certainly, in the design stages there will have been consideration regarding the ‘return on investment’ of time and effort (of the org) as a means to make good choices for activities. Additionally, this continues to be an important aspect during delivery stages, particularly when we view the intervention as iterative. To conceptualize the potential gains, researchers can use examples from previous studies to illustrate possible outcomes. Remember that the determiner of a “good” activity is not necessarily [low-effort + high-gain]. In certain organizations, [low-effort + low-gain] is a necessary first step in building trust and motivation.
Principle 6 - Working with What Exists
A good fit can only happen when intervention creators have taken time to understand what is already known, what is already in place, and what’s already been done. An intervention that is a ‘good fit’ is one that fits with the organizational practices, processes, and individual mindsets. While useful for several reasons, this principle also helps reduce the risk of the intervention disappearing once the researchers have gone. If an intervention doesn’t fit, it is unlikely to stick.
Principle 7 - Iterations
The authors point out, and I entirely agree with them, that data and analysis are imperative here. Observing, refining, and adapting requires a rigorous and systemic process. In the paper, iterative cycles are recommended whereby data is both monitored and also applied to potential adaptations. For a recommended systematic approach to evaluate the progress by using pragmatic scientific principles, please do read the suggestions on page 421. Don’t let science go to waste.
Principle 8 - Develop Learning Capabilities
Interventions are inherently tied to learning and are subsequently well-suited to expand the learning culture in an organization as well as capability. By building learning capabilities, lessons can bear fruit in support of future change. Similarly, it's good example-setting for researchers to demonstrate the value of their contribution by leaving the learning in place when they’ve gone. Organizations come to value the collaborative process in this way. Learning as a part of the intervention is obviously a key to success, but so is learning to learn. An intervention must facilitate that.
Principle 9 - Evaluating Interactions
The benefit here lies in coming away from the traditional approach to evaluation of an intervention - one that is decontextualized - and instead focusing on the when, why, and for whom it works. Additionally, this type of focus is necessary when considering how improvements can be made, and theories and practices in change management can be expanded upon.
Principle 10 - Knowledge Transfer
The stickiest of the sticky, knowledge transfer. This is one thing (of many) that separates consultants from organizational scientists; the interest in an intervention having an effect beyond the specific context in which it is used. Much ink is spilled in organizational scientific research on the topic of knowledge transfer, and as a consequence, much has been established as effective ways to make that happen. Here, we’re considering generalization, dissemination, and scalability - and identifying how to do each well via analytical generalization.
Final thoughts
It is with some frequency I urge clients to “let science love them”. Of course, it’s a sweet way to frame the relationship, but for me it acts as a reminder. It’s a reminder of how important robust science is, how useful the outcomes can be, how much we already know, and how we need to close gaps between what is discovered in studies and what winds up in an office space. Interventions have incredible potential for supporting changes in an organization. Use the principles above as your guide to realize that potential.
Works Cited
Hamzah, H. A., Marcinko, A. J., Stephens, B., & Weick, M. (2024). Making soft skills ‘stick’: a systematic scoping review and integrated training transfer framework grounded in behavioural science. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2024.2376909
Hughes, M. (2011). Do 70 per cent of all organizational change initiatives really fail? Journal of Change Management, 11(4), 451–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2011.630506
Nielsen, K., Marzocchi, I., Di Tecco, C., Vignoli, M., Ghelli, M., Ronchetti, M., & Iavicoli, S. (2023). Validation of the Intervention Preparedness Tool: a short measure to assess important precursors for successful implementation of organisational interventions. Work & Stress, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2023.2241417
Von Thiele Schwarz, U., Nielsen, K., Edwards, K., Hasson, H., Ipsen, C., Savage, C., Abildgaard, J. S., Richter, A., Lornudd, C., Mazzocato, P., & Reed, J. E. (2020). How to design, implement and evaluate organizational interventions for maximum impact: the Sigtuna Principles. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30(3), 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2020.1803960