How You Can Get Change Engagement In Japan   We know there are many challenges to getting the team to embrace changes. Resistance, poor buy in, fear of the unknown, the breakdown of cooperation, vague priorities etc. are common problems.  Change engagement won’t be achieved by email announcements or mass town halls.  These usually spark cynicism, criticism, scepticism and outright hostility.  We need a better approach.   Begin by placing your feet firmly in the moccasins of your team members who are about to undergo the change.  Think back to workplace changes you have experienced in the past.   What was your initial reaction at that time?  What were the outcomes as a result of the changes? What went well and what didn’t go so well?  Reflecting on your own history, positive or negative, is useful when trying to enlist others into the brave new world of change which coming down the pike.   How do we do it? We should not get tied up in the logistics of change – reporting lines, Division restructures etc.  Instead we should start with the people and drive hard on explaining the WHY of the changes.  There might be some external issues driving the change.  The company may be the acquirer or the acquired in an M&A. It might be internal through some developments in technology, scientific breakthroughs, rapid growth, personnel changes or sudden losses.  Steve Jobs being sacked at Apple is a case study in change for the organisation.    Having communicated the WHY, we need to do a thorough analysis of the risks and opportunities associated with the proposed changes.  What positives will the change bring forth?  We need to calculate the costs involved to prepare the required budgets. Having nominated the risks which will arise, we need to also come up with the means to reduce those risks. One factor which is often overlooked when considering costs and risks is the opportunity cost of doing northing. Doing nothing and taking no action is not free, it is not neutral.  There are gains given up when we freeze the changes.   Having decided that the advantages outweigh the risks and costs we move forward with the planning.  Most organisational changes fail because they were rushed and insufficient planning was done beforehand.  We are not robots.  Change impacts us as people and we have to factor that in.  Some will be more impacted than others so what is the plan for them?  New systems will replace the old.  How can we make sure the new system is fully functional and works.  A company I joined had just spent 5 million dollars on a new internal operating system.  It did not work.  Why? The initial planning was poor and mismanaged.  Systems need to integrate the changes into the organisation and this needs the fine detail worked out beforehand.  “Measure twice, cut once” is a good philosophy.  Once the plan is underway, the milestones need to be set and prepared for adjustment if needed.   The implementation may be gradual or abrupt, depending on the situation. Generally, given Japan’s risk aversion the preference will be for gradual change.  The tricky part is that this is not how the foreign HQ leaders see it.  They want speed and Japan wants slowly, slowly.  Regardless, individual responses will need to be carefully defined.  The timetable for the launch and the follow up has to be declared and publicised.  All the way through, the team have to be regularly reminded of why this is good for the organisation, rather than just getting caught up in the execution.   Our planning may have been perfect or flawed and the only way to know is to monitor the progress of the changes.  We need tools to measure progress. Are the expected outcomes actually coming to fruition? Are there any unforeseen problems which have emerged?  How are the people most affected reacting?  Were the cost estimates accurate or do we need to allocate further funding?  Have we been doing a good enough job of keeping everyone informed of the evolution of the change?   When we