What makes an

exceptional Change

Manager? Author

Nathan Fuller

Managing Director

Kite Consulting Group

June 2017

What Makes an Exceptional Change Manager?

Introduction

It’s fairly easy to spot a top performer. The vast majority of us will know the person in our team or department

who can be relied upon to consistently out‐perform.

Top performers are everywhere, in every job role and in every industry. Irrespective of how mundane or

insignificant a task may be, the fact remains there are always people who deliver to a good standard, and equally

there are those who represent the very best level of performance in getting the job done. These are the people

that can be relied upon to meet even the most complex deliverables and who consistently meet the objectives

set by their managers. Those of us lucky enough to have either managed or been mentored by a top performer

in our field, understand both the value they add to their organisation and the rewards in learning from them.

Recognising that top performers exist is easy enough; the challenge is in understanding why they perform so

well, so that we can build upon their success. After all, there may be attributes that combine to create a top

performer, that can also be used to identify them. Having the means to understand and identify top performing

traits would be the holy grail of business management, empowering hiring decisions, task allocation, staff

rotation, stakeholder engagement and much more.

This fact presents a problem. Whereas most of us could identify a top performer in our own business, a select

few could name top performers in our competitors – and it would take a collective effort to document enough

known top performers to conduct a meaningful study into their traits and attributes. Furthermore, we would

need a consistent measure via which we define and grade performance, applied by a neutral party over a wide

enough sample group and long enough period of time to make the results viable.

To achieve this, the Change Management Institute is partnering with Kite Change, part of Kite Consulting Group.

Combining the Change Management Institute’s competency framework and a unique data set held by Kite, we

have conducted the first industry‐wide study into the attributes and common denominators across top

performers in change management.

Independent Verification

I have worked in recruitment for a long time. The industry suffers from many flaws which can be frustrating for

end users and severely limit the ability of recruiters to do a good job for their customers. It isn’t the subject of

this paper to explore these challenges, but it is safe to assume that most would agree they exist.

At the heart of the recruitment challenge is a knowledge gap. Even the most well‐intentioned, customer‐minded

recruitment professional must accept that unless they have personally succeeded in the career for which they

recruit, there will always be gaps in their understanding, and limitations in their ability to evaluate the quality of

any given applicant. To put it more succinctly; how can we successfully identify the top performers in change

management, when we have never worked in that field?

Solving this dilemma has been at the heart of Kite’s journey for the past half‐decade. There have been a number

of ways in which we have enhanced the evaluation process (requirements gathering techniques, skills scorecards

and video applications, for example) and we are super proud to have been announced as the Recruitment

Agency of the Year, and the Best Agency in Financial Services at this year’s industry awards. Only one of our

processes, however, has allowed us to speak with absolute confidence about the calibre of person we are

representing, a process known as Independent Verification.

Since 2013, we have conducted a full performance review on every eligible candidate we have represented,

directly with either their current or previous line manager. In every case, we make sure the point of contact is

their manager and agrees to provide performance feedback on the individual. We mark their overall

performance, quality of work and likelihood to recommend. This process produces a final score which we rank

and grade the calibre of the candidate.

What Makes an Exceptional Change Manager?

The Independent Verification process is arduous but extremely valuable. It has allowed us to make genuine

recommendations to our customers, based not on our own assumptions but on the actual track record of the

individual in question.

Over the past five years we have independently verified over 2,800 candidates, breaking them into top

performers (in the top 10% of their field) good performers (upper quartile) and poor performers (less than

upper quartile). At the time of writing 1,490 of our verifications have been with professionals in change

management. In every case the person providing the feedback has been the direct line manager.

Asking the Right Questions

We have cross‐referenced performance grading with education and pay across 1,490 applicants, measuring

trend analysis and dependencies. We have also completed a full psychometric study and comparative statistical

analysis on a test sample of >10% against both personality traits and Change Management Institute

competencies.

The study will aim to answer the following questions:

− What is the personality type of a top performer, vs a good performer?

− Which Change Management Institute competencies do the top performers most prominently

demonstrate?

− Do the best people get paid the most?

− What are the personality attributes of top earners?

− Does higher education increase your performance?

− Does higher education increase your pay?

What Makes an Exceptional Change Manager?

Behaviours & Character Traits

Top Three Behaviours

The first natural step in our journey is to understand the

strongest personality types in each category. Then, we can

begin to identify trends in what makes a good or top

performer and start to spot differences between the two. It

would have been helpful then if our two groups had reported

radically different personality types. However, at this stage

in the study, the differences are painfully slight.

For both top and good performers, attributes #1 and #2 are

Resilience and Reflectiveness, respectively. There is a slight

increase in the resilience score in top performers (up by 3%),

but not enough of a difference to draw any meaningful

conclusions. So, we begin our study with a result that tells

us, in this instance at least, that the difference between

“good” and “great” is often miniscule. But don’t worry,

there’s good stuff to come.

For now, we can say with confidence that all successful change managers must be great at critically evaluating

situations whilst under pressure. As we find these two attributes consistently across all our verified candidates,

these skills may well represent a qualifying criterion for a successful career in change. No, they don’t help us

differentiate between the good and the great, but they do give us an interesting insight into what you need as

a baseline, to build a career as a competent change manager.

In attribute #3 we begin to see directly opposing behaviours between the two groups.

Good performers demonstrate very strong scores in being Approachable people, who are easy to spend time

with and naturally make others feel comfortable sharing their opinions.

Top performers on the other hand, place their own opinion far higher than others, scoring highly as people

who are Assured, authoritative, strong‐willed and controlling in social settings.

This is interesting data as it suggests, fairly

logically in many cases, that top performers are

naturally inclined to put more weight in their

own ideas than in those of others and are

authoritative in cases where other ideas are

voiced.

It would appear that being confident is more

important than being approachable.

We can now see some trends beginning to develop between good performers and top performers. The data is

still fairly light, but we will continue to map these and other factors as the study continues.

What Makes an Exceptional Change Manager?

Differences in Behaviour

As demonstrated already, it is in observing the differences in behaviour that we learn lessons about what

separates the good and top performers. As the study continued it became apparent that a clear trend was

developing in the worker methodology and approach to problem solving, with each group producing strikingly

different results.

Our good performing group were Explorative, naturally

innovative and always open to new ideas. At the same

time this group also scored very highly as being Sensitive

people who are more affected by their emotions than their

top performing peers, but also more intuitive to the

emotions of others.

Top performers scored very differently, reporting a

significantly lower inclination towards innovation with

Explorative down by as much as 13% and Caution up by

more than 10%, indicating an active resistance to trying

new ideas.

There is a similar theme when considering being Sensitive, which is actually the lowest scoring character trait

for top performers. So, our top performer group are not ruled by their emotions – but are also at risk of being

unaware of the moods of the people around them.

Finally, our top performers report an 8% increase in Private personalities – people who are inward thinking

and able to avoid distractions and knuckle down with what they are doing.

Innovation vs Performance

It would appear that Aesop was right, slow and steady really does win the race. Can it really be true that top

performers are less likely to innovate than good performers? That they are more cautious in their approach to

their deliverables and less in tune with the emotions of the business?

I would suggest in fact, that this makes perfect sense. After all, innovation and failure go hand in hand. To

innovate is to break the mould and try new ideas, to reimagine, to recreate. It is inevitable that those with the

courage and inclination to explore new solutions have a lower success rate than those who tread the path of

caution, deploying techniques that are proven

and favouring solutions that have stood the test

of time.

Perhaps the most interesting observation at this

point in the study, is the need for both good

and top performers in your change team. It is

essential to have reliable, talented professionals

who can be trusted to deliver time and time

again, people who can ensure that even the

most challenging workstream is a success.

Equally however, for a business to adapt and

future‐proof we must employ the talents of

reliable, solid performers who will discover new

approaches and create an adaptable business.

What Makes an Exceptional Change Manager?

Top Performers and the Change Management Institute competencies

It is important that we all speak the same language so that we can move towards a practical use of this

information. We worked with a third party psychometric statistician to find the common ground between the

Change Management Institute competencies and the attributes measured in the study, so that the data

would have a real and meaningful impact on the change community.

All the relevant behaviours from the Change Management Institute framework have been mapped as below.

We have already established the underlying personality attributes that identify successful performers, and that

separate top performers from good performers.

Here’s how it looks mapped to Change Management Institute behaviours.

Those with a keen eye for detail will note a missing attribute – Explorative, representing innovation. Explorative

does not have a clear counterpart in the Change Management Institute competency behaviours.

At the risk of tempting the wrath of the entire change community, may I suggest that this makes perfect sense?

Surely successful change is about ensuring the adoption and implementation of an existing vision, rather than

defining the vision itself? That is not to say that change professionals do not innovate, but that innovation itself

is not required to deliver change to a top performing level. There will inevitably be countless unexpected

challenges along the way (how can there not be when dealing with people?); and these challenges will require

deploying many of the behaviours and techniques listed in the Change Management Institute framework.

However, change managers are more in the business of delivering the plan than they are in defining the vision.

If this makes sense – and I’m no change professional, so it may not. But, if it does then it helps us to understand

some of the data we already have. We have just concluded in our last section that businesses need a

combination of both the innovative, explorative game changers; and reliable, steadfast top performers. Maybe,

in the case of change management this is not the case? Or to go one step further, maybe in the case of change

management, it is precisely that desire to recreate the wheel, rather than just focus on the deliverables, that

can draw the line between the good and the great.

What Makes an Exceptional Change Manager?

Top Performers and Pay

You’ll be forgiven if you’ve jumped straight to this section without so much as a cursory glance at what came

before. If you have, I’d like to suggest that from what we understand so far, a top performer wouldn’t do that,

so you may want to reconsider…

For all its faults, Capitalism should mean that we always pay a fair price. That is to say, we pay the price that the

rest of society is willing to pay. In our careers that should mean that the most sought‐after people receive the

greatest remuneration. It should mean that the best people get the best pay.

We broke our analysis on pay down by seniority and job function to make sure we had a clear picture, and then

separated people into three categories; below market rate, within market rate and above market rate.

As you can see, there is almost no difference between the two reports. We can confidently conclude that your

ranking as a good or top performer bears no impact whatsoever on your salary. We found this, frankly, very

unhelpful. Not because we wanted either party to come out on top, but because it doesn’t offer any practical

guidance as how or why some people are paid more than others. So, we decided to look at some different data.

Behaviours and Pay

Since there is no link between your performance and your earnings, could there be a link between your

personality type and your ability to command a higher wage?

Let’s look at the attributes that most positively and most negatively affect your earnings.

The strongest indicator of pay grade, significantly more so than any other factor, is being Assertive ‐ confident,

authoritative and strong willed. This is intuitive, as the greater the combination of self‐belief and authority, the

more likely you are to request a pay increase. Interestingly, Explorative innovation has a positive impact,

explaining why there are so many good performers who are paid above market rate. The most significant

negative impact on your pay grade is being Procedural –playing by the rules and avoiding difficult conversations.

In conclusion, then. After 5 years of performance feedback, hundreds of hours of psychometric testing and

consultation from an expert statistician, we find that your ability to earn more money is largely defined simply

by your willingness to ask for it.

What Makes an Exceptional Change Manager?

Top Performers and Education

Education is expensive and time consuming. Whether completed before your career or in sabbatical, choosing

to study rather than work is an investment of time and (usually) money. But, is it worth it?

Education and Pay

Working in change management you are far more likely

to be a top earner if you hold a Bachelor’s Degree, with

more than 61% falling into this category.

To read the data slightly differently, 84% of top earners

in change management have a higher education.

The same is true in the lowest earning category, where

more than half (54%) are professionals who chose not

to pursue higher education.

This is quite striking data, but we need to put it in context by asking a separate question:

Do the people with a higher education outperform those without?

Education and Performance

Measuring performance against education produced

some staggering results. Our study showed a consistent

link between top performers and people who do not

have a higher education.

It’s important that we digest this data carefully. What

the study did not show, is that there are more top

performers without degrees, than with degrees.

Instead, we find a proportional observation between performance and level of education, in which the lower

your education the more likely you are to be a top performer when measured against your peers. To put this

in a real‐world context, if you stand two change managers side‐by‐side, one with a degree and one without a

degree, it is statistically far more likely that the individual without a degree is a better performer.

This makes sense when you consider the source of our data. Whilst the candidates being measured in this study

come from a wide variety of industries, the vast majority work in large corporate environments. The barrier of

entry for a non‐graduate to be hired within a blue‐chip environment is famously high, despite some companies

moving to rebalance this in recent years. If we accept that it is harder to get a job in change management when

you do not have a degree, then it stands to reason that it is the top performing layer of non‐graduates that

impress enough to secure the position. In other words, only the best non‐graduates get hired so as a talent

pool they are higher calibre.

Coming back to our two change managers, we begin to understand why it is so much more likely that the non‐

graduate change manager is a top performer. Not because having an education somehow inhibits performance,

but because the filtering on those who do not is so severe (consciously or otherwise), that it changes the balance

of probability. Basically, you need to be pretty awesome to get that far without a degree.

Pointing out the Obvious

We have two sets of incompatible data. On one hand, we acknowledge that change managers without a degree

are very probably top performers. On the other hand, it is clear that people without a degree earn far less than

their colleagues with a higher education.

Unfortunately, it is very possible that in many cases the best change managers receive the lowest pay.

What Makes an Exceptional Change Manager?

In Conclusion

We began the study with a goal to answer a specific set of questions. Let’s look at all the answers as a

collective:

What is the personality type of a top performer, vs a good performer in change management?

All strong performers demonstrate Resilience and Reflectiveness. Top performers are distinguished by a firm

self‐Assured and authoritative character, whereas good performers are more inclined to be Approachable and

place weight in the opinions of others. The more you believe in yourself, the better you perform – and the best

performer probably isn’t the nicest person in the room.

Which Change Management Institute competencies do top performers most prominently demonstrate?

When aligning our language to the behaviours within the Change Management Institute competency

framework, we note that all strong performers demonstrate a natural inclination towards Resilience and

Analytical Thinking. However, top performers then lean firmly towards Personal Responsibility, where good

performers favour Interpersonal Style.

Do the best people get paid the most?

I’m afraid not, no. We find no tangible link whatsoever between performance and pay.

What are the personality attributes of top earners?

We found a direct link between the amount of money people earn and their scoring in being Assertive. The more

assertive, authoritative and confident someone is, the more they earn. The less willing you are to have difficult

conversations, the less you earn. This is by far the strongest indicator of pay. If you want to earn more money,

ask for it.

Does higher education increase your pay?

Yes, it does, but not as a direct linear model. It is not the case that the more educated you are, the more you get

paid, but it absolutely is the case that people who have been to university earn more. The best category to be

in from an earnings perspective is to hold a Bachelor’s Degree, this is the sweet spot for higher incomes. After a

Bachelor’s Degree, the more education you get the lower your income becomes. So, for example someone with

a PhD will earn less than someone with an MSc, who in turn will earn less than someone with a BSc. People who

did not pursue higher education are the lowest earners and significantly so.

Does higher education increase your performance?

Well, you’d hope there would be a link given the analysis with pay, but in fact the opposite is true. In change

management, you are significantly more likely to be a top performer if you do not have a degree, probably

because of the barrier to entry in large companies for those without a higher education.

Let’s be clear about what this means. This does not mean that doing a degree somehow inhibits your

performance ability, or that not studying somehow increases it. Nor does it mean that most of the best people

in change didn’t go to university. It does, however, suggest that the scrutiny applied to a non‐graduate at

interview is far more severe than someone who holds a degree. This produces the positive result of a tendency

towards hiring the best people in this talent pool, but also raises a peculiar point: If people with a degree are

more expensive, then why are we investing less effort making sure they’re a good hire?

What Makes an Exceptional Change Manager?

Closing Comments

There are some interesting and often uncomfortable conclusions to this study, particularly around education

and the role it plays in hiring and rewarding change professionals. There is no doubt that this is an area that

needs reform.

I would argue that there is another, larger lesson to learn. Rather than focusing on what shouldn’t matter, I

would suggest we draw attention to what should – namely, performance. It is neither commercial nor logical

that there is no measurable link between performance and pay, and this needs urgent attention. Moving

towards a model that measures and rewards people purely on their capabilities and performance, will both

ensure that companies keep their best talent – and have a domino effect on numerous potential prejudices of

which education is only the beginning. All of this moves us closer to a truly meritocratic rewards mechanism in

which everyone is given the same opportunity irrespective of demographic.

I’m a passionate evangelist of building process that improves quality of hire (it’s literally what I do for a living).

Getting hiring right is hard work, and whilst there are new techniques that make the recruitment process more

reliable, such as performance feedback, video applications and skills scorecards, our best customers are those

who understand not only the importance of hiring top performers, but also the importance of measuring,

rewarding and retaining the people in their business who add the most value.

Putting this into Practice

Interactive Webinar

In our interactive webinar on 14th July 2017, we spent time explaining the reasoning behind the study and the

roots of the data we used. We also ran live audience participation to find out what results the change community

predicted in each chase – and their opinions on the results. Seeing this evolve in a live setting was an interesting

experiment in itself and brought some really interesting opinions to light.

Change Management Institute London Live Event, 18th July 2017

On 18th July Kite are hosting a live Change Management Institute event to debate and explore the implications

and practical uses of the report, including sharing successful techniques for measuring performance in a change

environment. We will begin to answer the question of how we can simply and effectively measure performance in

a change team and provide opportunity for open discussion as to what this means for both hiring managers and

team members.