1. Talent For
Change Survey
Results Report
2015

2. mcpartners.co.uk
It takes a particular kind of optimism to look for the positive in the
aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis in 2008.
It’s no exaggeration to say that here, in early 2015; the banks are
suffering from chronic ‘change fatigue’ as they struggle to keep up
with the sheer scale, complexity and pace of change that’s required.
Even now, the evidence suggests that the industry is still at
something of a loss to know what actions to take to secure for
itself a viable, profitable, responsible future. Mass redundancies,
forever shifting strategies and countless restructurings have had
a devastating effect on employee morale and indications suggest
that there is more to come.
Opinions on the best way forward vary widely and it has to be said
that not all of those opinions are based on a full appreciation of the
issues. A little clarity would not go amiss.
As observers of the industry from close quarters since 2002, we
felt it might be a good time to step back and take stock. Rather
than simply stand by and offer yet more opinion from the side-lines,
we thought we could make a useful contribution to the debate
by conducting a survey into attitudes and beliefs of both internal
and external banking change professionals and those parties who
support them, not to apportion blame, but to discover what they
think could be done to improve the performance of the industry in
unprecedented – and uncharted – times.
I’m delighted to be able to present the findings of our survey in this
report. There is much cause for optimism within it: the respondents,
in senior and middle management roles within the banks and in
external consultancies, seemed to warm to the opportunity to
offer their opinions in the privacy of the research ‘laboratory’. They
gave mature (and occasionally, quite trenchant) assessments
of the problems faced by the banks and made constructive
recommendations to solve them which we feel make compelling
reading.
We hope that you find this report insightful, thought provoking and
useful in the continuing task of turning the British banking industry
around and returning the banks both to health and to wealth.
Dan Malka
Group CEO, MC Partners
Foreword
01

3. 02
Foreword 1
Contents 2
1. Introduction 3
2. Executive Summary 5
3. General Change 11
4. Leading Change 19
5. Managing Change 23
6. Resourcing Change 27
7. Organising Change 37
8. Developing Change 41
9. Learning Change 46
Glossary 51
Appendices 52
Authors 53
Contents

4. 03
The banking industry is at a critical juncture as it moves towards increased volumes,
lower margins, greater simplicity and more standardisation. The scale, volume,
complexity and pace of change taking place in the sector are unprecedented. Many of
the large banks are undergoing massive ‘front to back’ regulatory overhaul at the same
time as extracting billions of pounds of cost and spend, changing employee behaviours
and work practices to win back and retain customer trust and loyalty, reorganising
structures to make way for new operating models and redesigning hundreds of
processes and systems to be more efficient.
Most banks are suffering from chronic fatigue having been in a state of frenetic change
since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) hit in 2008 and are struggling to energise
workforces reeling from mass redundancies, countless restructurings and low morale.
All the indications are that the bow wave of regulatory change and the operations to
tidy up and iron out the changes that are being rushed through in its wake will continue
for at least another three years. However, some of the bigger transformation efforts are
likely to last for 10 years. Of course, forward-thinking banks, that now accept change
is not something that happens only periodically, already have their eye on the horizon,
contemplating how their organisations can achieve lasting agility in a rapidly evolving
digital banking world.
Never before has there been a more urgent need for well-coordinated and well-resourced
change in banking.
The truth is that many banks could be better at leading and managing change. For many
reasons detailed in this report, banks could handle the pressures far more strategically and
systematically, saving themselves endless pain, increased risk exposure and wasted cost
while moving faster to sustainable working environments. Banks are still placing personal
fiefdoms, bonuses and self-interest over organisational learning and continuous innovation.
Like past and current enterprise-wide moves towards greater customer-centricity, risk
management and collaboration, the way banks approach change itself calls for a significant
and difficult shift in culture, mindset and behaviour that can only be brought about by an
aligned set of leaders who collectively have the ability and courage to make it happen.
Transformational change of this nature is notoriously hard and banks are not alone in
their struggles. Research from McKinsey & Company shows that 70% of all (not just
transformational) change efforts fail to deliver the benefits expected and desired when the
Introduction1

5. 04
change was started, a figure that hasn’t altered for nearly 30 years.
Whatever banks and numerous other organisations have been doing in the past is either
not working or not working well enough. When change is successful, it tends to be:
“… episodic in calmer waters rather than a continuous,
ongoing series of strategic adjustments executed quickly
in constantly rough conditions.
”JOHN KOTTER IN HIS LATEST BOOK ON CHANGE, ‘XLR8’,
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW PRESS, 2014
Explanations for why this might be the case abound and include not making the right
strategic decisions initially, neglecting to formulate detailed implementation plans, not
creating the right environmental conditions for success, failing to raise urgency levels, not
communicating effectively and not role modelling the behaviours expected of employees,
to name but a few.
While change in banking is undeniably a complex subject involving many factors,
ultimately they all involve the need for human beings, typically change leaders, managers
and agents with the right knowledge, skill set and experience (capability) in sufficient
numbers and organised optimally (capacity).
For that reason, this survey avoids debates about change methodologies and processes,
and focuses on how banks can ensure they have the capability and capacity they need
to deliver their change agendas.

6. 05
GENERAL CHANGE
A number of banks are facing the problem of not having enough capable senior talent
within their ranks in the midst of complex change and this problem is compounded by
constraints and inefficiencies in recruiting.
Change as a capability is critically important for banks to run profitable, agile, sustainable
enterprises. Failure to reframe their approach to change is likely to result in banks being
caught in an exhausting, painful, costly and seemingly endless cycle of work. In addition
to not realising some or all of the expected benefits, failure can bring rising costs to ‘re-
do’ poorly implemented change or pay fines for missed deadlines, ongoing operational
disruption and lasting reputational damage. In time, this will have a significant impact
on the banks’ ability to attract talent, grow market share, focus on innovation and stay
competitive.
Senior leaders in banks must collectively and radically adjust their attitude to change if
they are to successfully future-proof their organisations. This will involve improving how
they evaluate and develop their own change leadership and management competence,
how they attract, hire, develop and resource for change, how they organise change
expertise across their organisations and how they prioritise learning from change
successes and failures.
Seeing change differently means recognising and rejecting parts of existing industry
hubris, culture and behaviour associated with change, including the mis-characterisation
of ‘changing the bank’ as the poor relation to ‘running the bank’.
Leaders inside and outside the industry widely agree that banks generally could be doing
a much better job at change to ease the pain they are currently experiencing, especially
over the mid- to long-term. 90.9% of respondents to the survey feel that the banking
industry’s record in delivering change is either ‘about average’ or below. Only 9.1%
think change is being delivered ‘very well’ and none at all feel the industry is delivering
‘exceptionally well’.
Banks are seen to be ‘about average’ at managing change associated with Risk and
Regulation and Cost Reduction and ‘poor’ at managing Technology, IT Systems and
Data Change.
Executive Summary2

7. 06
LEADING CHANGE
Fewer than 18% of respondents have ‘total or considerable confidence’ in their banks
having sufficient numbers of change leaders to deliver developmental, transitional or
transformational change successfully.
Fewer than 25% of respondents feel leaders within their banks perform ‘very well’ in any
of the change leadership competencies presented in the survey.
The majority of respondents feel that Account Executives and Sponsors in their banks
could improve in the following areas:
-- Changing mindset and culture to support new business directions
-- Creating and sustaining conditions for success (breaking down
organisational boundaries that get in the way of change)
-- Building organisational capacity for ongoing change and self-renewal
MANAGING CHANGE
The overall story for change management capability is more encouraging than for change
leadership. Against a number of key competencies, respondents feel that business
change managers and programme managers across the bank perform best at ‘planning,
managing and delivering new directions through multiple change initiatives’, with 77% of
respondents seeing performance in this competence as ‘about average’ or above.
Business change managers and programme managers could improve in a number of
other change management competencies:
-- Establishing change communities
-- Identifying, sourcing and training resources for change
The change management capacity picture is not as good as the change leadership
picture, however – fewer than 15% of all respondents have ‘considerable or total
confidence’ in their banks having sufficient numbers of change managers to deliver
developmental, transitional or transformational change successfully.
RESOURCING CHANGE
Banks could be more strategic in the way they balance their use of permanent staff,
Contractors and Consultants. A significant number of respondents (44%) feel the internal/
external balance struck is generally ‘poor’.
When resourcing for change, banks could determine and take into account the type of
change more effectively. Only 11% of respondents feel banks determine and take into
account the type of change ‘very well’ when resourcing for change, while over 55% score
this capability ‘poorly’ or ‘very poorly’.

8. 07
Banks could also have a clearer picture of the size and location of their change resources.
44% of respondents feel their bank’s ability to size its change population and know where
members of that population reside within the bank is either ‘poor’ or ‘very poor.’
When it comes to hiring change professionals, respondents are generally not satisfied
with the banks’ end-to-end resourcing models. 66% are only ‘partially satisfied’ or ‘not
satisfied at all’ with the model in their banks. Suggested areas for improvement for
Internal Resourcing Teams and Recruitment Process Outsourcers/Managed Service
Providers (RPO/MSPs) if used, include:
-- Understanding the role and business needs
-- Optimising hiring manager interviewing time
-- Making hiring decisions by managing a more robust process
-- Speeding up time to fill
-- Supporting onboarding/integration
Internal Referral Schemes provide banks with the highest level of consistency when hiring
high quality permanent staff.
Agencies provide banks with the highest level of consistency when hiring high quality
contract staff, although the quality of agencies varies considerably. While complimentary
of some, most Sponsors feel that Agencies generally could do a better job in a number
of areas. Suggested areas for improvement for Agencies include:
-- Increasing diversity of candidates on short list
-- Reducing cost of hire
-- Supporting onboarding/integration
Small to Mid-size Consultancies are, on balance, seen to be more value-adding than
Large Consultancies when partnering with banks to deliver change successfully.
Suggested areas for improvement include better management skill set of individuals for
Small to Mid-size Consultancies and value for money for Large Consultancies.
ORGANISING CHANGE
66% of all respondents favour a model for organising change in banks that combines
distributing change expertise across multiple business units (the Federated Model)
and having a global and centralised change management ‘Centre of Excellence’
(the Centralised Model) over a purely Federated Model, a Centralised Model or an
Outsourced Model.
‘Line of sight’ across change initiatives at the Business Unit level appears to be fairly
clear but could improve at country, regional and group levels.
2. Executive Summary

9. 08
DEVELOPING CHANGE
Identifying, assessing and developing individuals capable of delivering change
successfully are seen as critical processes for banks but they score poorly in these
areas. Over 94% of respondents think that identifying and assessing individuals capable
of delivering successful change is of ‘high or critical importance’ (nearly 54% think it is
of ‘critical importance’). Over 42% of respondents think that the banks they work for do
‘poorly’ or ‘very poorly’ in this area.
Over 80% of respondents think developing change professionals is of ‘high or critical
importance’ (46% think this is of ‘critical importance’). Nearly 60% of respondents feel
the banks they work for develop individuals capable of delivering successful change
either ‘poorly’ or ‘very poorly’.
Impediments to identifying, assessing and developing individuals capable of delivering
change successfully include:
-- Insufficient resources
-- ‘Change’ roles seen as different from ‘Business As Usual (BAU)’, ‘run the
bank’ roles
-- Lack of internal assessment capability
-- Lack of internal development capability
-- Insufficient time allocated to development planning
-- Not enough subject matter expertise
LEARNING CHANGE
Banks are beginning to see the benefits of looking outside their own industry for guidance
in delivering change but are still considered to be poor at learning lessons from the past
when delivering change. Over 60% feel that the banks they are working for are ‘poor’ or
‘very poor’ at learning from other industries when it comes to change. Asked how well
the banks they work for learn lessons from the past about delivering change successfully,
a large number of respondents answered ‘poorly’ (44%).
There are a number of valuable solutions that banks can adopt to start delivering change
more successfully in the future. Over 50% of respondents consider solutions proposed
in the survey to be ‘valuable’, ‘very valuable’ or ‘exceptionally valuable’. The top three
solutions are:
1. Change professional development support and advice – education, training,
stretch role coaching, etc.
2. Real-time, future-focused change workforce planning
3. Work alongside internal HR teams to improve recruitment of resources

10. 09
2. Executive Summary
Key findings and recommendations
Invest for long-term
sustainability – build
internal capability
and capacity in
change leadership and
change management.
1 2
4
3
Focus on critical
leadership and
change leadership
competencies
including
accountability,
decision-making,
systems thinking,
stakeholder management,
communication, resilience,
adaptability and emotional
intelligence.
5 6
Don’t backfill
change leader
roles with
Consultants or
Contractors who
have been in the
organisation for
short periods of time.
7 8
Improve strategic
workforce planning,
obtain a clear picture
of the size and location
of existing change
resources across the
bank and carefully
determine the type of
change contemplated.
9
Have a deliberate
strategy for working
with Consultants
and provide
guidelines to staff
for their use
(i.e. the ratio
of Consultants
and Contractors to
permanents).
Conduct impact
and readiness
assessments as
part of a
process to hire
for change.
Use systematic
talent management
processes and
practices to ensure
the right talent
is leading and
managing critical
change initiatives,
i.e. highly networked,
influential business leaders
who know and understand
the business that needs changing
and who are capable, experienced
change leaders.
Give priority and
resources to the
evaluation and
development of
individuals capable
of delivering
change
successfully –
either internally or
using capable external
providers.
Place high potential
change leaders
into increasingly
complex change
roles and
support them.

11. 10
15
Incentivise
change
success in
bonuses.
1211
Improve
‘Line of Sight’
of change
initiatives at
country, regional
and group levels.
Consider
organising
change resource
around a
combined
Federated and
Centralised Model.
13 14
Reward and
encourage
the mastery
of complete
leadership skill
sets including
developing people.
Embed
change in
performance
management
systems.
10
Strengthen
and continually
monitor the
performance of
the bank’s end-
to-end resourcing
model.
19
181716
Make
change a
valuable
career path in
banking.
Explore strong
learning
partnerships
with other
companies from
industries outside
of banking.
Monitor
and review
change initiative
successes and
failures from the
perspectives of
multiple stakeholders.
Recognise
and embed
learning from
past change
initiatives
into banking
culture.

12. 11
“At an organisational
level. I can’t think
of anywhere that
has done large,
organisation
change well.
”SPONSOR
INTRODUCTION
One of the positive effects of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) has been to expose the
need for change in the banking industry more clearly than before. For change to have any
lasting beneficial effect, it needs to be addressed at an attitudinal and cultural level: major
surgery rather than cosmetic.
Survey participants were asked how well, and how successfully, the banks are delivering
change, and in which areas of the banks’ activities, since the GFC; they were asked
how well change initiatives have been implemented; and, perhaps most tellingly, to what
extent the banks themselves are owning and taking responsibility for the outcomes of
these change initiatives.
MANY BANKS ARE STRUGGLING TO
KEEP UP WITH THE ‘RELENTLESS’
AMOUNT OF CHANGE
Leaders inside and outside the industry
widely agree that banks generally could
be doing more to ease the pain they are
currently experiencing, especially in the
mid-to long-term.
90.9% of respondents rate the banking
industry at ‘about average’ or below in
delivering change. Only 9.1% think the
industry is delivering change ‘very well’;
and no respondents feel the industry is
delivering change ‘exceptionally well’.
27.3% admit the industry is delivering
change ‘poorly’ or ‘very poorly’. This
picture is consistent across all the
main audience categories, Sponsors,
Consultants and Contractors – the very
individuals who are responsible, and in
many cases accountable, for delivering
change in banking.
How well do you think the banking
industry is generally delivering
change since the GFC?
CHART 1
63.6%
23.4%
9.1%
3.9%
VERY POORLY
POORLY
ABOUT AVERAGE
VERY WELL
General Change3

13. 12
“Change is not seen as
core competence.
”SPONSOR
“Change is seen as
cost cutting, there is
enormous suspicion.
”SPONSOR
“Change is something
that is done to the
business, not something
everyone owns.
”SPONSOR
“Changing the bank is
seen as the poor cousin
to running the bank.
”SPONSOR
A common complaint is that there is too much change happening all at once and the
consensus is that banks are not proficient when the scale and complexity of change
increases:
“Doing less would be more. We are struggling to keep up
with process, system and organisation change – they are all
hitting at the same time as cost cutting, trying to outsource,
right source, offshore, reduce staff and do ‘business as
usual’ whilst hiring new talent.
”SPONSOR
Getting an accurate picture of change success in banking is difficult for a number of
reasons. ‘Line of Sight’ over initiatives is often limited and outcomes, together with
associated costs, are frequently not tracked. Definitions of success often depend on
who’s being asked:
“I’ve just seen the Basel III programme go in, which at the
very senior levels was declared a success, but when you
talk to the production teams that have to live with it, you
hear there are all these problems. Define success? For
senior guys, it is being able to declare success and they
want to believe it; for the guys on the ground it means
something different.
”SPONSOR
BANKS ARE FAILING TO DELIVER CHANGE AS SUCCESSFULLY AS
THEY COULD, IN LARGE PART DUE TO THEIR CULTURES AND
ATTITUDES TO CHANGE
The banking industry’s culture and attitudes to change itself lie at the heart of the issue.
Many senior leaders in the profession typically possess ingrained beliefs about change
that affect current leadership and employee behaviour. These are probably the biggest
barriers to lasting change and sustainability, and are the hardest to dismantle or reshape.
Most organisations resist change and fight hard to preserve the status quo. Banks
appear to go further and discredit change as a discipline or capability in its own right:
To the majority of people in the survey, phrases such as ‘change the bank’ and ‘run the
bank’ are unhelpful, old-world and divisive. Many feel that in reality, there is no difference
between changing a bank and running a bank and the leaders of the business units
that need to change must be the same leaders that drive the change. Others argue that
while they are different concepts, they nevertheless need to be treated equally and be
complementary to one another – ‘there needs to be a partnership between the two’.

14. 13
Of course, ‘running the bank’ is vitally important. At a time of considerable economic
pressure, leaders in banks, like many other organisations, face the task of changing
behaviour but staying profitable at the same time:
“You’ve got to balance this transition to a new brand of
leadership and values while actually making some money
otherwise you’ll go out of business.
”SPONSOR
That many in the banking profession might still see ‘running the bank’ as more important
than ‘changing the bank’ is probably a throwback to another strong cultural dimension –
the absolute pre-eminence of individual revenue generation:
“
It is very easy to apportion profit to run a division. You sell
products to wealth customers – brilliant, here’s some profit we
can attribute to what you do. But, if you change the wealth
business, it is not clear what value you bring to the party. So
most banks that are responding to cost cutting are not saying,
at the same time, change people are very important.
”CONSULTANT
This view is especially true if people feel there is no accountability for change success:
Change leadership certainly doesn’t hold the same reverence it does in other industries:
“
Traditional change delivery is seen as a place where you
put people who are talented but you don’t know what to
do with them; change is still seen as a way to pasteurise
people.
”CONSULTANT
To some, this old school approach and mindset is slowly changing. It needs to change
more quickly if billions of dollars of investment and institutional knowledge are not to
be further wasted.
Banking’s naturally risk-averse nature and its cultural legacy of focusing on personal
revenue generation, short-termism and treating change with derision has had an
impact on the banks’ ability to lead and manage change quickly and effectively, to
attract, hire, develop and organise the right expertise for change as well as to learn
continuously from previous change successes and failures.
“… the change function
is isolated in an ivory
tower somewhere.
”CONSULTANT
3. General Change

15. 14
Banks are rated ‘about average’ at managing change associated with Risk, Regulatory
Change, Restructuring and Cost Reduction, and Customer Experience; but ‘poorly’ at
managing change in Technology and IT Systems and Data.
One major contributing factor to this result is the legacy of systems banks have grown up
with and the costs involved in modernising those systems. Many of today’s banks grew
through acquisition but failed to fully integrate their architectures and processes:
“
Certainly in terms of systems and infrastructure, it is hard to
untangle the legacy and extract costs, because quite often,
even though they pull out 80-90% of old stuff, it is quite
difficult to totally remove, e.g. back books – it costs more
to take out rather than leave it running there, so you end up
with a fairly complex change landscape.
”CONSULTANT
How well do you think the bank is delivering successful change in the following
domains since the GFC?
VERY
POORLY POORLY
ABOUT
AVERAGE VERY WELL
EXCEPTION-
ALLY WELL
DON’T
KNOW
RISK
3.8% 19.2% 46.2% 24.4% 2.6% 3.8%
REGULATORY
2.6% 20.8% 50.6% 19.5% 5.2% 1.3%
TECHNOLOGY AND IT SYSTEMS
5.1% 38.5% 38.5% 15.4% 1.3% 1.3%
DATA
9.0% 35.9% 39.7% 9.0% 1.3% 5.1%
RESTRUCTURING AND
COST REDUCTION* 2.6% 18.2% 44.2% 27.3% 1.3% 6.5%
CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE
3.9% 15.6% 41.6% 18.2% 2.6% 18.2%
MA
0.0% 16.7% 25.0% 9.7% 0.0% 48.6%
MOBILE, DIGITAL AND NEW MEDIA
4.0% 17.3% 32.0% 17.3% 1.3% 28.0%
TABLE 1
* including rightsizing, offshoring, near-shoring, outsourcing, shared services, etc.
Q

16. 15
RISK AND REGULATION
The change agenda in banking is clearly being dominated by regulatory change. To many
Sponsors, Consultants and Contractors, the amount, scope, pace and non-negotiable
nature of regulatory change has been, and continues to be, ‘relentless’ and to some,
‘overly intrusive’.
Different banks would appear to be taking different approaches to this pressure, with
some banks ‘deliberately leaving things to the last minute because they believe, if they
get into trouble, the regulator is so unclear itself, it will not have the right answer’ while
others ‘are much more proactive’ and ‘fearful of non-compliance’.
Banks know that all the regulators such as the Fed, ECB, PRN, MAS, HKA, share
information with each other now ‘so if one [regulator] finds an issue they all know.’
Banks are responding by increasing the size of departments, such as operations and
risk, to cope with the amount of change and frequently hire from outside to do this.
For many, the main issue is simply how to prioritise and ‘keep the regulators at bay’.
Several Sponsors said that the sheer volume of change going through is also having
an impact on the bank’s ability to 1) step back and think strategically and 2) implement
overdue internal changes to improve. This, they say, has meant they are actually slower
to implement regulatory changes and have less control. The difference between making
the business compliant and improving the business is summed up as follows:
“
I do think there has been a lot of inefficient change done
and that has generated run costs which will need to be
unwound in the future. So what do I mean by that? You
have five pieces of regulation that come in during the year;
five different programmes have been kicked off to produce
five different solutions. If you had more time to think and
plan and had a better quality of change implementers in
the organisation, you’d probably have 1-2 solutions that
address all five pieces of legislation. Part of that is driven by
the inefficiency of the regulators themselves who are putting
an extreme pressure on the banks to get things done in a
certain period of time and part of it is about the quality of
governance in those organisations.
”CONSULTANT
The view that the regulators themselves are partly to blame is also fairly widespread:
The regulators, it would seem, need to be mindful of how much change they are asking
banks to make if they want those changes to do what they are designed to do, as well as
actually have an overall positive impact on the sector and economy.
“… rarely do they know
or have little regard for
the infrastructure and
resource constraints the
banks are under.
”CONSULTANT
3. General Change

17. 16
TECHNOLOGY AND IT SYSTEMS
Technology and IT systems have something of a split personality in banking depending
on where you reside.
According to some Sponsors, technology is still seen as a business panacea, a cure
for any problem or issue, a hangover from the days when banks ‘could throw money at
infrastructure.’ One Sponsor said this was the approach in his bank before it ‘realised it
was too big for this, 4 to 5 years ago.’
Consultants and Sponsors comment that an over-reliance on IT still exists in parts of banks
today and manifests itself in, for example, business people failing to consider and make
necessary changes to business processes before asking IT to lay down new technology.
As one said, ‘You can’t put an Oracle D ledger onto a badly designed process and expect
it to fit all processes.’ From that perspective, IT shouldn’t always be blamed for failures; the
business also needs to take some responsibility.
SEEING CHANGE AS AN IT PROBLEM
According to others, the business ‘hates’ IT and sees change as an ‘IT problem’. As
one Consultant says, ‘even if the business case is clear and there is a sponsor and
middle management, the programme is seen by business people as IT change.’ In
some banks, this might be because people supporting the change are technology
individuals who don’t always know the business and who use technology-orientated
change methodologies and standards that are not always relevant to, or needed
for, business change. In others, the IT operating model is simply too expensive and
unsustainable, ‘requiring nearly every single project to have IT support’.
A typical dilemma often faced by banks is:
“
You have a boss moving front-end development/capability
but you have the challenge of hooking it into the back-end
systems. Quite often the data is not clean, it is not in one
place, there are multiple interfaces, and there is a lot of
data scrubbing.
”SPONSOR
IMPROVING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND THE
BUSINESS
One Consultant said banks ‘really need to think about how the business and technology
parts of the business interact.’ For a start, he suggests that capital spending on IT
projects needs to move from ‘large spikes’ to a ‘more continuous spend.’
DATA
Data change will increasingly pose a big challenge for banks in the future. Both the regulators
and the industry are driving the demand for looking at data in a different way:
“Banks have huge
repositories of data
sitting in legacy systems
but, currently, it is too
expensive to pull that
data out into data
solutions and have it
available for an agile
front-end to use in
an analytical way like
Yahoo or Amazon.
”SPONSOR

18. 17
3. General Change
RESTRUCTURING AND COST REDUCTION
Almost all the banks are doing strategic cost reviews to reduce their cost bases:
“
More recently, banks have gone from regulatory compliance
and fixing controls, to realising they are spending lots of
money and not making enough money, therefore have a
major return on equity issue. So, on the tail end of a large
regulatory change programme, we are thinking about cost
efficiencies and trying to do that at the same time as being
compliant.
”CONSULTANT
The tension between managing compliance and cost is, in some banks, leading to ‘real
pressure between accountants who are trying to stop people spending money and
those people who could go to jail if they do not get things done and fulfil their regulatory
commitments.’ One example that illustrates this is:
“
I have headcount approval for 30 but I’ve tried to hire 10
people from various places but [accountants] have stopped
that happening. I’m now six months behind. I need to go to
the Fed in Sept for reg approval but can’t do it now without
going external. Even if people unblock the ‘permanent’
pipes, it takes 5-6 months to get them in, so I am bringing
in the consultants tomorrow.
”SPONSOR
For a number of people, the major challenge to the banking industry is now managing
the cost base – and managing the cost base is harder than managing growth:
“
In my view, driving growth is a little bit easier because you
are creating new things, you just punch them in, people
are more tolerant about overruns because there is a bigger
prize at the end of it. When you have a cost agenda, it is
harder because there is more legacy to deal with, more
complexity of systems and processes and data that aren’t
well integrated. Trying to standardise that and drive cost out
across the whole organisation is challenging.
”SPONSOR
Another factor is the lack of significant investment in change capability. Banks are not
making sufficient money to make big investments and, according to one Sponsor in
Risk and Finance, ‘there is very little funding to look at things more strategically.’

19. 18
THE IMPACT OF CHANGE FAILURE IS HUGE
Change initiatives that fail or only partially succeed typically have an impact on many
areas of a bank – legal/regulatory, finance, technology, operations, and reputation, to
name but a few. In addition to not allowing the business to realise anticipated benefits
on time, if at all, failed initiatives frequently waste enormous amounts of capital, cause
significant disruption to operations and can seriously affect a bank’s standing in the
market. Regulatory change failures result in much more than a diminished reputation;
they can lead directly to share price falls as a result of big fines, cost of capital rises and
negatively impacted cost:income ratios.
Cost and time overruns on change programmes or initiatives ultimately mean less resource
for banks to innovate and prepare, after long-term, disruptive threats posed by new
entrants, companies such as Google, Amazon, Apple and emerging protocols such as
Bitcoin.
SUMMARY
The survey findings indicate a low level of confidence in the ability of the banks to
embrace and effect change at the all-important level of attitude and culture. Without
major improvement here, any further change initiatives run the risk of only succeeding
superficially, if at all.

20. 19
“If I think of the
big programmes
that went wrong,
the major reason
was down to
leadership.
”SPONSOR
INTRODUCTION
While the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) revealed attitudinal and cultural deficiencies in
the banks towards the need for change, it also exposed the lack of leadership qualities
essential to effect the changes necessary for the future health of the industry. The latter
can be seen as a direct consequence of the former: without changes to both, it is difficult
to see how change can be delivered successfully.
Survey participants were asked both about the quality of the banks’ performance in
leading change and also whether they felt there were sufficient numbers of change
leaders with the right skills, in the right place within their organisation.
THERE IS LITTLE CONFIDENCE THAT BANKS HAVE SUFFICIENT NUMBERS
OF CHANGE LEADERS TO DELIVER CHANGE SUCCESSFULLY
Leadership is essential for delivering change. Across the board, Sponsors, Consultants,
Contractors and RPO/MSP employees feel that banks do not have enough ‘really skilled’
change leaders. Fewer than 18% of respondents have ‘considerable’ or ‘total confidence’
in their banks having sufficient numbers of change leaders to deliver any type of change
successfully. 52% of respondents have ‘little confidence’ or ‘no confidence’ in their bank’s
ability to deliver transitional and/or transformational change with the numbers of change
leaders available:
In some cases, project or programme managers are expected to be change leaders
when they do not possess the skills or experience to fulfil such a role:
“
Project managers often lack leadership. They develop in
a certain way, with change methodologies, gantt charts,
presentations, etc., but often they lack a sense of belonging.
Their tenure and livelihood is based on the project timeline so
they don’t make as much of an effort to integrate. In short,
project managers don’t feel they own the accountability, and
if they think like this, they won’t go the extra mile.
”SPONSOR
Leading Change4
“… the guy that is
responsible for the
change on the steering
group is normally a
successful business
person but not a
change leader.
”SPONSOR
“Banks need a massive
evolution. Leaders in
banks are pretty terrible
at behaviour change,
communication plans
and winning hearts
and minds.
”CONSULTANT

21. 20
ACCOUNT EXECUTIVES AND SPONSORS IN BANKS COULD IMPROVE
IN A NUMBER OF CHANGE LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES
Survey participants were asked how Account Executives and Sponsors generally
performed against a number of change leadership criteria.
While the majority of respondents feel that Account Executives and Sponsors perform
‘about average’ in some competencies, they perform less well in the three most critical,
change-specific areas: 1) the ability to change the mindset and culture in supporting new
business directions 2) the ability to break down organisational boundaries and to create and
sustain conditions for success and 3) the ability to build capacity within the organisation for
ongoing change and self-renewal.
These three related areas require a deep knowledge of both change leadership and
organisation theory, and the practical ability to apply that knowledge in specific circumstances.
How well do Account Executives and Sponsors across the Bank:
VERY
POORLY POORLY
ABOUT
AVERAGE VERY WELL
EXCEPTION-
ALLY WELL
DON’T
KNOW
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND OWNERSHIP
FOR THE OUTCOMES OF CHANGE
(POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE)
5.7% 21.4% 45.7% 20.0% 4.3% 2.9%
CHANGE MIND-SET AND CULTURE TO
SUPPORT NEW BUSINESS DIRECTIONS
4.3% 34.8% 36.2% 21.7% 0.0% 2.9%
ROLE MODEL BEHAVIOURS THAT ARE
CONSISTENT WITH AND SUPPORT THE
DESIRED STATE
5.8% 23.2% 46.4% 23.2% 0.0% 1.4%
CATALYSE PEOPLE’S COMMITMENT AND
HIGHEST CONTRIBUTION TO THE CHANGE
THROUGH INSPIRATION AND MOTIVATION
5.8% 27.5% 43.5% 17.4% 2.9% 2.9%
CREATE AND SUSTAIN CONDITIONS FOR
SUCCESS FOR THE CHANGE. BREAK DOWN
ORGANISATIONAL BOUNDARIES THAT
GET IN THE WAY OF CHANGE
8.7% 47.8% 23.2% 15.9% 1.4% 2.9%
BUILD ORGANISATIONAL CAPACITY FOR
ONGOING CHANGE AND SELF-RENEWAL
7.2% 39.1% 37.7% 11.6% 0.0% 4.3%
HAVE A LONG-TERM STRATEGIC FOCUS
8.7% 23.2% 42.0% 15.9% 2.9% 7.2%
TABLE 2
Q

22. 21
ABILITY TO CHANGE MINDSET AND CULTURE TO SUPPORT NEW
BUSINESS DIRECTIONS
Knowing and being conversant with specific issues within the business, understanding
the drivers of change and the culture, having the ability to form networks and gain
influence with business leaders are all key roles. Successful programmes at one bank
were compared with unsuccessful programmes at another:
Banks often fall into the trap of pulling in business people without the necessary change
skills into change roles:
“
… often what happens is you have good business leaders
going in to run complex change but they don’t know how
to run change… or you get good change leaders going in
to run complex change agendas but they don’t understand
the business.
”SPONSOR
Banks have suffered in the past because they have prioritised subject matter expertise
over real change capability:
BREAKING DOWN BOUNDARIES, CREATING AND SUSTAINING
CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESS
Change leadership needs to deal with different functions and different people across the
bank; expectations need to be managed – between Business and IT for example; change
leaders need to network and influence, often without positional authority, internally and
externally – with the regulators for example; they need to solicit important information from
others; they need to raise urgency levels amongst their staff; they need to communicate
the new vision, and the impact of large programmes; they need to provide clear direction
often when there is uncertainty or ambiguity; they need to lead by example; they need to
develop a strong, united team that works well together; they need to adapt to different
environments and cultures.
BUILDING CAPACITY FOR CHANGE AND SELF-RENEWAL
Perhaps the most common leadership competencies in building capacity for change
involve refined people skills – the ability to manage internal politics, the interests of
stakeholders, and internal resistance to change, through effective communication and
emotional intelligence. Being able to see ‘the big picture’, the ‘front to back’, is also
seen as a significant leadership competence in delivering change.
Successful change leaders are seen as sharing similar attitudinal characteristics in
reliability, credibility, resilience, patience and proactivity. They also take a long-term view of
the world and are motivated ‘beyond money’ to see programmes through to completion.
4. Leading Change
“… getting business
people involved in
programmes in the early
stages… Knowing they
need to both implement
and work with the
change meant there was
greater impetus around
time and scope.
”SPONSOR
“… subject matter
experts with high
thinking skills, for
example, analysing and
interpreting regulations,
often don’t make good
change professionals
who need to lead and
inspire.
”SPONSOR

23. 22
SUMMARY
The survey findings suggest that the shortcoming of change leadership, both qualitatively
and quantitatively, is well recognised: while this awareness can be regarded as a positive,
it is also something of a plea. The opinion of all the survey respondents is that investment
by the banks in people with proven change leadership skills, in sufficient numbers, would
have beneficial results.
“There just isn’t the
leadership or the
bandwidth.
”SPONSOR
The overall state of the banks’ change leadership scorecard is not one that would be likely
to excite a senior executive or board member demanding above average performance in a
critical discipline. Fewer than 25% of respondents feel leaders, within the banks surveyed,
perform ‘very well’ in any of the competencies and fewer than 5% feel they perform
‘exceptionally well’.
It’s clear that if banks have leaders who themselves do not possess the right type of
capabilities to deliver change, they will have insufficient numbers of change leaders in
their ranks to deliver their complex change agendas successfully.
Recommendations
Get business people
involved in change
initiatives early
but don’t make the
mistake of ‘pulling’
business people
without the necessary
change skills.
Effective change leaders
know and understand the
business that needs changing
and because they have a personal
interest in seeing the change deliver
benefits to their business quickly
and effectively, also tend to work
harder to make it happen.
Don’t ‘backfill’
change leader roles
with Consultants
or Contractors who
have been in the
organisation for
short periods of
time.
For the reasons
mentioned above,
Consultants and Contractors
who have not been in the
organisation long enough to know
the business they are meant to
change do not make effective change
leaders.
1 32
Evaluate, educate
and develop
leaders to
become change
leaders.
Ensure change
leadership
competencies form
part of senior leadership
competency models; use
these competencies to assess
leaders rigorously and frequently;
research and embed ‘best in class’
change leadership education into
LD curricula.
54 6
Encourage and
develop systems
thinking and
operating.
The ability to see
‘the big picture’
is seen as very
important in delivering
change.
Demand and
reward individual
accountability and
decision-making.
Ensure
‘management by
steering committee’
does not end up diluting
accountability.
Place value on
people skills.
The most important
leadership
competencies
involve refined
people skills, the ability
to manage internal politics,
stakeholders and resistance
through effective communication,
adaptability, resilience and emotional
intelligence.

24. 23
“All programmes
need good project
managers, PMOs
and Programme
Directors.
”SPONSOR
INTRODUCTION
Aside from the banks’ capability for leading change, there remains the important issue
of managing change: are there change managers of sufficient quality in the industry to
implement change initiatives and are there enough of them?
This section of the survey addresses this issue. Participants were asked to give a ranking
for their bank against a number of change management competencies and were also
asked whether they felt confident that change managers were in place in sufficient
numbers to deliver developmental, transitional and transformational change.
OVERALL, THE PICTURE FOR CHANGE MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY IN
BANKS IS ENCOURAGING BUT THERE IS STILL ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT
When asked about the performance of business change managers and programme
managers across the bank against a number of key competencies, the respondents give
some cause for encouragement.
Performance in planning, managing and delivering new directions in multiple change
initiatives is seen as ‘about average’ or above by 77% of respondents. Owning the
budget and managing overall cost is not far behind with over 70% seeing performance
as ‘about average’ or above, and with 7.7% describing it as ‘exceptional’, the highest
rating for all change leadership and change management competencies. Creating and
overseeing the building of change infrastructure and mechanisms to support change is
also rated relatively favourably.
Sponsors and Contractors are generally more positive about change management
capability than Consultants.
Managing Change5

25. 24
THERE IS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT IN 1) ESTABLISHING CHANGE
COMMUNITIES 2) IDENTIFYING, SOURCING AND TRAINING
RESOURCES FOR CHANGE 3) ENSURING THE CHANGE IS ALIGNED
AND INTEGRATED WITH ALL INTERDEPENDENT SYSTEMS AND
PROCESSES AND 4) HAVING A LONG-TERM PROGRAM DELIVERY
FOCUS DEFINING ROADMAPS AND INTERIM DELIVERABLES
Competency in these four areas could be improved considerably. Fewer than 30%
of respondents feel Business Change Managers or Programme Managers within the
banks perform ‘very well’ in these competencies and yet they are important activities for
assuring change success.
How well do Business Change Managers and Program Managers across the Bank:
VERY
POORLY POORLY
ABOUT
AVERAGE VERY WELL
EXCEPTION-
ALLY WELL
DON’T
KNOW
PLAN, MANAGE AND DELIVER NEW
DIRECTIONS THROUGH MULTIPLE CHANGE
INITIATIVES OR ‘PORTFOLIOS OF CHANGE’ 4.5% 13.6% 51.5% 22.7% 3.0% 4.5%
ESTABLISH CHANGE COMMUNITIES
1.5% 35.4% 38.5% 16.9% 1.5% 6.2%
IDENTIFY, SOURCE AND TRAIN RESOURCES
FOR CHANGE – E.G. DEFINE COMPETENCIES,
CAREER PATHS, ETC. FOR CHANGE
PROFESSIONALS
7.7% 46.2% 26.2% 12.3% 3.1% 4.6%
CREATE AND OVERSEE THE BUILDING
OF CHANGE INFRASTRUCTURE AND
MECHANISMS TO SUPPORT THE CHANGE 9.4% 28.1% 40.6% 15.6% 1.6% 4.7%
OWN THE BUDGET AND MANAGE OVERALL
COST
3.1% 21.5% 41.5% 21.5% 7.7% 4.6%
ENSURE THAT THE CHANGE IS ALIGNED AND
INTEGRATED WITH ALL INTERDEPENDENT
SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES 14.1% 25.0% 40.6% 14.1% 0.0% 6.3%
HAVE A LONG-TERM PROGRAM DELIVERY
FOCUS DEFINING ROADMAPS AND INTERIM
DELIVERABLES 15.4% 26.2% 32.3% 18.5% 3.1% 4.6%
TABLE 3
Q

26. 25
If these managers are not proficient in establishing change communities it becomes
harder to identify and source change professionals, learn from past change successes
and failures and get information and feedback on programme delivery and outcomes,
etc.
If they are not performing well when it comes to identifying, sourcing and training
resources for change, there is a real risk that incapable or inexperienced people are
asked to lead, manage or participate in programmes, which increases the risk of failure
or cost/time overruns. Failure to train resources means the workforce will not be fully
equipped to lead and manage change in the future, perpetuating the bank’s reliance on
Consultants and Contractors.
THERE IS LITTLE CONFIDENCE THAT BANKS HAVE SUFFICIENT
NUMBERS OF CHANGE MANAGERS TO SUCCESSFULLY DELIVER
CHANGE IN KEY AREAS
Respondents generally, and Consultants in particular, feel that banks do not have enough
change managers to be able to deliver different types of change successfully.
5. Managing Change
Fewer than 15% of all respondents have ‘considerable confidence’ – and none at all
have ‘total confidence’ – in developmental, transitional or transformational change being
delivered successfully by change managers in the bank.
Some interviewees spoke highly of specific programme successes in the past describing
them as ‘brilliantly managed’ and ‘run very well, with the right levels of programme rigour
and discipline around costs.’
Others were less complimentary.
Another Sponsor spoke of a shortage of Senior Programme Managers with the right
level of experience. All agreed that banks don’t have enough permanent staff to fill
project manager, PMO and programme director roles and regularly use Consultants and
Contractors to fill the gaps.
NO
CONFIDENCE
LITTLE
CONFIDENCE
SOME
CONFIDENCE
CONSIDERABLE
CONFIDENCE
TOTAL
CONFIDENCE
DON'T
KNOW
DEVELOPMENTAL
CHANGE 4.7% 25.0% 50.0% 14.1% 0.0% 6.3%
TRANSITIONAL
CHANGE 4.7% 34.4% 40.6% 14.1% 0.0% 6.3%
TRANSFORMATIONAL
CHANGE 15.6% 34.4% 39.1% 4.7% 0.0% 6.3%
TABLE 4
Q
How confident are you that the Bank has sufficient numbers of capable
Change Managers in the organisation to be able to successfully deliver
the following types of change?
“... there are enough
people with generic
skills in programme
management but there
are not enough change
managers.
”CONSULTANT

27. 26
SUMMARY
The survey findings paint a somewhat encouraging picture of the performance of change
managers and indicate useful areas for improvement. However, it is felt once again
that there are too few change managers to be able to deliver change successfully –
particularly in transformational change, the most difficult, but arguably the most pressing
of the three areas of change.
Recommendations
Evaluate, educate
and develop
leaders to become
change managers
Include change
management
competencies in senior
leadership competency
models and assess leaders
against these criteria rigorously
and frequently.
Establish change
communities
Change
communities are
critical for learning
from past change
successes and
failures, as well as
getting information and
feedback on programme
delivery and outcomes across
the bank.
1 32
Identify, source
and train
resources for
change
Change managers
play a key role in
preventing incapable
or inexperienced people
from leading, managing or
participating in programmes,
and increasing the risk of failure or
cost/time overruns.

28. 27
“Banks are
horrendous at
managing the
supply and demand
of resources.
”CONSULTANT
INTRODUCTION
Change professionals in the banking industry can come from a number of sources; but
how well do they perform in the opinion of Sponsors, Contractors and employees of
Recruitment Process Outsourcers (RPOs) and/or Managed Service Providers (MSPs)?
This section examines in detail the perceived performance of both internal resourcing
teams and external providers, such as Agencies and Consultancies, in the way they
provide support to banks pursuing multiple change agendas.
BANKS COULD BE MUCH MORE STRATEGIC IN THE WAY THEY
BALANCE THEIR USE OF PERMANENT STAFF, CONTRACTORS
AND CONSULTANTS
Banks use Consultants and Contractors for numerous reasons. Consultants bring a
different approach, new thinking and subject matter expertise to the table. They are widely
seen to be strong at strategy and design but weaker at implementing and embedding
change. Contractors are seen as cheap resource for specific skills or to fulfil seasonal
needs. Both Consultants and Contractors are used to backfill for capability gaps, including
those created by permanent staff fully utilised on other programmes.
Much change resourcing is done on a short-term contract (i.e. not permanent) basis and
this offers advantages and disadvantages. It can provide flexibility and reduce costs but it
can also lead to real problems when those recruited into important change positions are
inexperienced or don’t know the bank well enough.
How well banks are doing with getting the internal/external balance right varies
widely from bank to bank. Many different kinds of permanent/Consultant/Contractor
permutations are being tried out and the overall picture is mixed:
Many banks do not appear to take a strategic view of resourcing. While they may have
some level of governance that attempts to determine what level of change expertise
exists ‘in-house’, Sponsors admit this process is overly subjective and ‘flawed’:
“
… if there is a process, it is not one that engages on any
level with talent acquisition at the right time.
”SPONSOR
Resourcing Change6
“One bank I know is
being monopolised by
McKinsey while others
don’t like Consultants
at all.
”SPONSOR

29. 28
The impact of not being strategic can be negative:
“
… I think the right resource is not identified for the right roles
because the decisions are being made by the wrong people
and, by the time we get there, it is too late. I think that has a
huge, huge impact on the industry and that hasn’t changed
since I have been in it [14 years].
”RPO/MSP EMPLOYEE
Inconsistent accountability for hiring budgets and ‘quirky accounting rules’ are partly to
blame in allowing hiring managers to treat Consultants and Contractors as ‘temporary’
or ‘off account’ costs rather than fixed headcount costs. Other reasons include the
unspoken ability to transfer accountability for programme failure to Contractors or
Consultants or simply not having the time to manage people.
The main issue Sponsors have with Contractors is their motivation:
There is a perceived risk that Contractors will ‘walk when they get another offer’. They
may have a vested interest in making projects last as long as they can. Sponsors are also
weary of Contractor ‘musical chairs’ – a situation where Contractors move from bank to
bank and attempt to ‘transpose their experience’. Greater sensitivity to current operating
environments and cultures from some Contractors would be welcomed.
“… making money
rather than seeing
projects through to
completion.
”SPONSOR
How well does the Bank determine
and take into account the type
of change* when resourcing for
change?
*i.e. Developmental, Transitional,
Transformational Change.
CHART 2
33.3%
44.4%
11.1%
11.1%
VERY POORLY
POORLY
ABOUT AVERAGE
VERY WELL
Examples abound in the back corridors
of banks and Consultancies of huge
programme failures caused by the use and
abuse of bank-consultancy relationships
(on both sides). One Sponsor recalls
a time when ‘hiring Consultants was
like an addictive drug for the bank’. Of
course, many consulting programmes
add tremendous value to banks but to
effectively plan, sequence, implement and
ultimately embed large-scale programmes,
banks also need capable, tenured
Sponsors inside the organisation, involved
very early on in the design process.
WHEN RESOURCING FOR CHANGE,
BANKS COULD DETERMINE AND
TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE TYPE
OF CHANGE MORE EFFECTIVELY...
Respondents clearly feel that the banks
they work for could improve in this area.
Only 11% feel banks determine and take
into account the type of change ‘very well’
when resourcing for change, while over
55% categorise this capability ‘poorly’ or
‘very poorly’.

30. 29
66% of respondents are either ‘partially
satisfied’ or ‘not satisfied at all’ with the
bank’s model. A typical description for
how the end-to-end resourcing system
performed was ‘a bit hit and miss.’ This
view is broadly shared across Sponsors,
Consultants, Contractors and RPO/MSP
employees:
A number of banks have too little senior
talent in their organisations in the midst
of complex change and this problem
is compounded by constraints and
inefficiencies in recruiting.
Attracting and hiring suitable candidates
into permanent change roles is difficult.
Hiring Managers ideally want people to
‘just slot in’ but they rarely do. For most
Sponsors, failure is a result of people not
having the right skill sets, motivation and
attitude. Pay is also a factor:
6. Resourcing Change
… AND HAVE A CLEARER PICTURE OF THE SIZE AND LOCATION OF
THEIR CHANGE RESOURCES
Central to any workforce planning strategy is knowing where, how much and what type
of resource exists in the organisation at any given point of time. When asked whether
banks have a clear picture of their change resources, the majority of Sponsors answered
‘about average’; 44% of respondents feel the bank’s ability to size its change population
and know where members of that population reside is either ‘poor’ or ‘very poor.’
WHEN IT COMES TO HIRING CHANGE PROFESSIONALS, SPONSORS
ARE GENERALLY NOT SATISFIED WITH THEIR BANK’S END-TO-END
RESOURCING MODEL
“I’m not sure how effective
banks are at hiring
change professionals.
It is not standardised.
What you tend to have
is a large, disparate set
of Contractors doing
different things who are
not joined up and who
are not that great.
”CONTRACTOR
How satisfied are you with the Bank’s
end-to-end resourcing model for
hiring change professionals?
CHART 3
27.8%
33.3%
33.3%
5.6%
NOT SATISFIED AT ALL
PARTIALLY SATISFIED
MODERATELY SATISFIED
VERY SATISFIED
“… banks have little or
no appetite for paying
top dollar for high
quality, permanent
change staff.
”SPONSOR
CHANGE PROFESSIONALS HIRED FROM OUTSIDE THE BANK ARE NOT
VIEWED AS EFFECTIVE
The majority of Sponsors see change leaders hired from outside the bank since the GFC
as ‘about average’ or less in delivering developmental change (77%), transitional change
(88%) and transformational change (88%). Very few Sponsors (less than 6%) believe
change leaders hired from outside the bank since the GFC are ‘highly effective’. Similar
figures are recorded for change managers.

31. 30
On closer analysis, however, this response is likely to be due to banking culture and the
prevailing attitude to change. Hiring change professionals – leaders and managers – from
outside the industry can be beneficial, or even vital, in order to break the cultural mould.
What then becomes important, is how well the end-to-end resourcing system tests:
-- their expertise and experience in changing cultures and leading change
-- their resilience, adaptability and ability to learn new topics, environments and,
potentially, industries. For these individuals, banks also need to ensure their
integration supports and insulates them from being ‘organ-rejected’ by the
bank’s culture.
WHAT CHANNELS DO BANKS USE TO HIRE CHANGE PROFESSIONALS?
Sponsors use a variety of channels to hire permanent and contract staff including
Agencies, Internal Referral Schemes and ‘Direct Sourcing’ through Internal Resourcing
teams and associated RPOs/MSPs.
Consultancies, split here into Large and Small to Mid-size, are predominantly used on a
time and materials basis (69%). Small to Mid-size consultancies are used equally on an
‘outsource for solution outcome’ and ‘time and materials’ basis.
75% of Sponsors say their bank uses Agencies for hiring change professionals. 93% of
them say their bank uses Consultancies to support them with change.
For hiring permanent staff, banks use their Internal Resourcing Team and RPO/MSP (if
used) ‘frequently’ and internal referral schemes ‘sometimes’. Sponsors are split around
how frequently they use Agencies for permanent staff; with 30% saying their banks use
Agencies ‘very frequently’ while another 30% say Agencies are used ‘sometimes’.
For hiring contract staff, the picture is even more mixed. Some banks would appear to
use their Internal Resourcing Team and RPO/MSP (if used) ‘very frequently’ (40%) while
others use it rarely (27%). Some banks use Agencies ‘very frequently’ (40%) while others
use them rarely (33%). Most banks use internal referral schemes for contract staff either
‘rarely’ or ‘not at all’ (60%).
NOT EFFECTIVE
AT ALL
MINIMALLY
EFFECTIVE
ABOUT
AVERAGE
MOSTLY
EFFECTIVE
HIGHLY
EFFECTIVE
DON'T
KNOW
DEVELOPMENTAL
CHANGE 11.1% 22.2% 44.4% 11.1% 5.6% 5.6%
TRANSITIONAL
CHANGE 5.9% 23.5% 58.8% 0.0% 5.9% 5.9%
TRANSFORMATIONAL
CHANGE 5.9% 35.3% 47.1% 0.0% 5.9% 5.9%
TABLE 5
Q How effective would you say Change Leaders hired from outside the Bank since the
GFC have generally been in successfully delivering the following types of change?

32. 31
6. Resourcing Change
What is probably happening here is that some banks use Agencies predominantly for
hiring contract staff and others use their own Internal Resourcing Team and RPO/MSP.
ATTITUDES TO DIFFERENT HIRING CHANNELS
SPONSORS ON AGENCIES
The majority of Sponsors rate Agencies ‘about average’ when hiring change
professionals in most dimensions. Strengths include: 1) understanding the work
environment/culture 2) quality of role profile 3) number of candidates presented on short
list 4) optimal information for decision-making 5) management of robust process for
decision-making and 6) quality of external hire (based on retention and performance after
1 year). Weaknesses include: 1) diversity of candidates on short list 2) cost of hire and 3)
supporting onboarding/integration.
While complimentary of some Agencies, most Sponsors felt they could do a better job:
“… they don’t screen
candidates at all – it
is down to the people
doing recruitment.
”SPONSOR
NOT
AT ALL RARELY SOMETIMES FREQUENTLY
VERY
FREQUENTLY
DON'T
KNOW
AGENCY - FOR PERMANENT STAFF
6.3% 25.0% 31.3% 6.3% 31.3% 0.0%
AGENCY - FOR CONTRACT STAFF
0.0% 33.3% 6.7% 20.0% 40.0% 0.0%
INTERNAL REFERRAL SCHEME - FOR
PERMANENT STAFF 0.0% 33.3% 53.3% 6.7% 0.0% 6.7%
INTERNAL REFERRAL SCHEME - FOR
CONTRACT STAFF 26.7% 33.3% 20.0% 6.7% 0.0% 13.3%
INTERNAL RESOURCING TEAM AND
RPO/MSP (DIRECT SOURCING) - FOR
PERMANENT STAFF
13.3% 6.7% 13.3% 40.0% 26.7% 0.0%
INTERNAL RESOURCING TEAM AND
RPO/MSP (DIRECT SOURCING) - FOR
CONTRACT STAFF
6.7% 26.7% 13.3% 13.3% 40.0% 0.0%
LARGE
CONSULTANCY 0.0% 13.3% 60.0% 20.0% 6.7% 0.0%
SMALL TO MID-SIZE
CONSULTANCY 6.7% 26.7% 53.3% 6.7% 6.7% 0.0%
TABLE 6
Q How often does the Bank use the following channels to support it
with resourcing for change?

33. 32
Compared to RPOs/MSPs, however, Agencies are widely seen to be better:
“
… the agencies, although they can’t do my job, at least they
make an effort to try to understand what a business analyst
in a risk team looks and smells like.
”SPONSOR
Sponsors say they would like to see Agencies improve in the following areas:
-- Have a better understanding of the role and change required
-- Have regular catch-ups and Agency performance reviews
-- Have a business proposition based on quality but complemented with a
more competitive price
-- Improve the ‘hit rate’ – reduce the number of poor CVs and candidates
through the door and/or provide a first level check on candidates rather
than be ‘CV pushers’
-- Spend more time understanding what differentiators are needed to generate
a high quality shortlist
-- Have a greater understanding of a candidate’s skills and experience
-- Identify better the strong candidates from the average and the weak
-- Provide a faster turnaround time on CVs
CONTRACTORS ON AGENCIES
A majority of Contractors rate Agencies ‘highly’ in creating accurate profiles and respecting
their time with interviews and ‘medium’ in a number of other dimensions such as explanation
of role, explanation of process and interview process (rigour and completeness).
Contractors say they would like to see Agencies improve in the following areas:
Better candidate service pre-hire
-- Have a clearer understanding of the business and role responsibilities
-- Provide more information on the culture, team morale, team dynamic and
what it is like to work for the client before starting
Better candidate service post-hire
-- Make contact once on-boarded and communicate at regular intervals
throughout the assignment
-- Move from sales agent mentality to a long term career partner mentality;
help Contractors develop and stay marketable by providing updates on
competencies required of change professionals; provide information about
other change opportunities; manage contract renewals, rate rises, provide
feedback on performance, etc.
-- Move from resource providers to resource enablers
“I want to see different
profiles recommended
to me and explained;
everyone thinks the
same way.
”SPONSOR

34. 33
6. Resourcing Change
Develop a Consultant change IT hub
-- Create a change knowledge management system and network to support
Consultants – mailings, group discussions, talks by regulation experts, etc.
-- Provide support and help in resolving HR issues
-- Establish workflows to track recruiting, invoicing and bill payment
SPONSORS ON INTERNAL RESOURCING TEAMS AND RPOS/MSPS
As with Agencies, the majority of Sponsors rate their Internal Resourcing Team and RPO/
MSP (if used) ‘about average’ in many dimensions. Strengths include: 1) understanding
the work environment/culture 2) quality of role profile 3) screening and assessment of
internal and external candidates 4) providing optimal information for decision-making and
5) Quality of External Hire (based on retention and performance after 1 year).
Possible areas of development include: 1) understanding the role and business needs
2) optimising Hiring Manager interviewing time 3) managing a robust process for making
hiring decisions 4) improving time to fill and 5) supporting on-boarding/integration.
The Sponsors are divided about the service they receive from their internal resourcing
teams. Some are complimentary, praising, in particular, partnership approaches and
help with screening:
Others said they were not getting the service they needed or the service was inconsistent:
“
… I have mixed views. I think it could be a lot better.
Some of it is too centrally controlled and therefore
it is difficult for them to understand what is really
required; some of it is very process-driven rather than
understanding my needs.
”SPONSOR
Sponsors say they would also like to see their Internal Resourcing Team and RPO/MSP
(if used) improve in the following ways:
-- Have a better understanding of the function, role and fit and optimise the
time spent on each role
-- Improve quality of staff
-- Improve time to fill
-- Be more flexible and less wedded to process
“I’m happy with the
permanent and contract
staff we have hired.
The resourcing team
is experienced and
has good, talented
people.
”SPONSOR

35. 34
CONTRACTORS ON INTERNAL RESOURCING TEAMS AND RPO/MSPS
Contractors would like to see the Internal Resourcing Team and RPO/MSP (if used)
improve in the following areas:
Better hiring process
-- Be more clear on the hiring process and progress
-- Have less admin
-- Publish specific information about roles
-- Remove resourcing service providers and bring the function in-house; be
more involved in direct recruitment rather than entirely relying on agencies
-- Agree on an SLA for processing and on-boarding. Ensure timebound
delivery and renewal of contracts; workflow to track recruiting, timesheets
and bill payments
-- Keep an eye on the resource pool across multiple portfolios and identify
those coming on the bench – borrow learning from the consulting world
Better on-boarding
-- On-boarding processes running efficiently
-- Better knowledge of roles and teams
Greater contact throughout assignments
-- More communication, information and feedback at regular intervals
throughout the assignment
-- Provide solutions and help resolve issues instead of just handing them over
to the Contractor
CONSULTANCIES
Small to Mid-size consultancies, on balance, are seen to be more value-adding than Large
Consultancies when partnering with banks to deliver change successfully.
As with the Agencies and Internal Resourcing Teams, the majority of Sponsors rate
Consultancies ‘about average’ in many dimensions and the differences in the results
outside this category reveal specific strengths and possible areas of development.
LARGE CONSULTANCIES
Sponsors feel Large Consultancies perform ‘very well’ or ‘exceptionally well’ in the
following areas: 1) Individuals agreed at the outset are individuals delivering the work
2) Technical ability (data analysis, facilitation, etc.) 3) Subject matter expertise (e.g. risk
compliance) 4) Banking/FS expertise of individuals supplied 5) Management skill set of
individuals supplied and 6) Change expertise of individuals supplied.
On the other hand, Sponsors rate Large Consultancies ‘poorly’ or ‘very poorly’ when it
comes to Value for Money.

36. 35
6. Resourcing Change
SMALL TO MID-SIZE CONSULTANCIES
Sponsors feel Small to Mid-size Consultancies perform ‘very well’ or ‘exceptionally well’
in the following areas: 1) Individuals agreed at the outset are individuals delivering the
work 2) Technical ability (data analysis, facilitation etc.) 3) Subject matter expertise (e.g.
risk compliance) 4) Banking/FS expertise of individuals supplied and 5) Overall Quality of
Outcome. However, the management skill set of individuals supplied is rated as ‘poorly’.
Sponsors would like to see Consultancies supporting banks with change improving in the
following areas:
Do more to bring about change
-- Have more people with full end-to-end delivery experience (“I want change
professionals not generic Consultants. There is a big difference”)
-- Offer a service to embed and implement the change as an extension of a
project, in partnership with people on the ground
Continually look at ways to add value
-- Provide briefings on industry needs; develop more thought leadership
-- Consider ways to optimise spend (e.g. drive down blended rate over time to
reflect tenure, maturity and vendor experience on site)
-- Continue to move towards ‘value-based’ consulting (“there is not genuine
performance management of the programme. It’s done on a very subjective
performance assessment”)
Select better, more suitable Consultants for the role
-- Think about fit and who the best person is for the job, not the best person for
the [consultancy] firm
-- Ensure Consultants are based at the client and work the duration of the
project
Improve ways of working
-- Work with the bank (avoid ‘being an island’ and only dealing with more
senior stakeholders for sell-on opportunities)
SUMMARY
It is apparent from the views expressed by the survey participants that banks struggle
to find the right balance between the use of internal and external resourcing, and also
between permanent and temporary staffing. Many felt that their bank is not taking a
sufficiently strategic view of resourcing change and that it was failing to match particular
individuals to particular tasks.

37. 36
Recommendations
Strengthen and
evaluate the
performance of the
bank’s end-to-end
resourcing model.
Monitor the performance
of Agencies and
Consultancies as well as the
Internal Hiring Team.
Have a deliberate
strategy for
working with
Consultants and
provide guidelines
to staff for their
use (i.e. the ratio
of Consultants/
Contractors to
permanents).
1
3
2
4
Know the number,
quality, and
specific change
expertise of all
staff involved in
change. Base
this on the type
of change and
impact and readiness
assessments. Use reliable
assessment tools to validate.
In addition to checking subject
matter expertise (e.g. risk or
regulation) and programme
management capability (e.g.
Prince 2), take care to check
individuals have successfully
led, managed or been involved
with delivering change initiatives
before, and ideally on initiatives
of a comparable type, scope and
complexity (e.g. where there was
diminished resources or fierce
political conflict).
When hiring
change leaders
from outside
the banking
industry conduct
additional tests.
Evaluate a) their
expertise and experience
in changing cultures b) their
resilience, adaptability and
ability to learn new topics and
environments quickly and c) their
ability to network and influence
within the bank. Ensure their
integration supports learning and,
as far as is possible, insulates
them from being ‘organ-rejected’
by the bank’s culture.

38. 37
“Each programme
requires a bespoke
approach, yet
executives are
always looking for a
single, most effective
approach. This
always fails.
”SPONSOR
INTRODUCTION
Banks are at many different stages of organising themselves for change: some are seeking to
adapt old models, some are introducing new models altogether and some are blending old
and new. Survey participants were asked to express their views about the kind of structure
they preferred for organising change and to offer an opinion on how well communication
takes place between Group, Region, Country and Business Unit levels.
A COMBINED FEDERATED AND CENTRALISED MODEL IS SEEN AS THE
MOST EFFECTIVE WAY OF ORGANISING CHANGE IN BANKS
Determining which is the best way to organise for change is a topical problem currently
under discussion in a number of banks.
No clear solution has been reached yet, however, with many either starting to explore
new models or evolving old models that have been deemed ineffective.
There are a number of considerations that banks need to be aware of when organising
for change. These include:
-- How the bank should source and distribute change resource across the bank
-- How the bank should monitor and control change efforts across the bank,
especially in line with group strategy
-- How the bank should standardise and/or customise change methodologies,
approaches, etc. across the bank
Not all banks should be treated in the same way:
“
… If the bank is a pure play investment bank, there is less
case for centralisation. However, if the bank is in investment,
retail, wealth, etc. there is a clear argument for a group
strategy and portfolio management function for instituting
good standards and a common language front-to-back.
”CONSULTANT
Organising Change7
“… many of the problems
we see are based on the
current model.
”CONSULTANT

39. 38
Many arguments were put forward for a change management function at group-level
including:
-- aligning change with group strategy
-- being able to understand all the changes that are going on across the group
at any one point in time (key programmes, key milestones, progress)
-- being able to see the change organisation (screened individuals, skills,
capabilities, performance assessments, etc.)
-- controlling programmes tightly (how programmes are set up, structured, etc.)
-- creating a single language of change (i.e. standard templates, processes,
etc.)
-- having a pool of general resource to draw on
-- having a pool of 50-60 senior change leaders who can learn from each other
Advocates of centralisation point to large programme successes where programmes
have been tightly controlled from the centre, whereas programmes ‘working for a single
division’ without central CEO or CFO control can often be rejected by other divisions.
Equally, there were many arguments against a change management function at group-level
and in favour of a more federated model:
-- centralised change can be slow and ‘monoline’ compared to change that
is federated
-- single centres of change excellence tend to be ‘full of change managers
who are parachuted in without understanding the business they are meant
to change’
-- having one change (often tech-oriented) methodology oversimplifies matters
and can often be completely irrelevant
-- change functions with specialist knowledge and expertise need to be
aligned to the business, not to some ‘amorphous change function’ that
substitutes specialist expertise with general programme management (so,
for example, investment banking needs investment banking change skills’)
To many, having a federated model doesn’t preclude having a common set of standards
and an integrated view. Indeed, many mentioned ‘hub and spoke’ type organisations
combining the advantages of both centralised and federated models working fairly well.
There was unequivocal support among 66% of respondents in favour of a model for
organising change that combines distributing change expertise across multiple business
units (the ‘Federated Model’) and having a global and centralised change management
‘Centre of Excellence’ (the ‘Centralised Model’), over a purely Federated, Centralised or
Outsourced Model.

40. 39
7. Organising Change
TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION AT ALL LEVELS BEYOND STAKEHOLDERS
AND SPONSORS IS CRITICAL
When asked what considerations should be taken into account when organising change
delivery across the bank, many responded that 1) continuous, clear, transparent,
consistent, two-way communication at all levels, beyond stakeholders and sponsors, and
2) engagement and commitment to the change both by those influencing the change
and those affected by the change, were key.
In terms of what needs to be communicated, respondents were vocal, citing:
vision, strategy (including strategic architecture), change readiness, ‘what good
looks like’, objectives, stakeholder needs/defined requirements, benefits (including
cost and effort savings), ‘what’s in it for me?’, constraints, impact analyses, joint
planning of project activities, system and process dependencies, priorities, realistic
expectations, roles, responsibilities, accountabilities, tracked results (business and
change), conflicts.
LINE OF SIGHT ACROSS CHANGE INITIATIVES COULD IMPROVE
AT COUNTRY, REGIONAL AND GROUP LEVELS
Respondents were specifically asked how clearly they feel different levels within the bank
have ‘line of sight’ across all change initiatives. The majority of respondents said that,
at Group, Region, Country and Business Unit level, the ‘line of sight’ across all change
initiatives is ‘somewhat clear’ (approximately 50%).
Which model do you think is most
successful for organising change
in the Bank?
CHART 4
65.6%
18%
8.2%
3.3%
4.9%
DISTRIBUTED CHANGE EXPERTISE
ACROSS MULTIPLE BUSINESS
UNITS (FEDERATED MODEL)
A GLOBAL AND CENTRALISED
CHANGE MANAGEMENT
‘CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE’
(CENTRALISED MODEL)
COMBINATION OF BOTH
FEDERATED MODEL
CENTRALISED MODEL
OUTSOURCED
OTHER

41. 40
In all cases other than at Business Unit level, a number of respondents feel the ‘line of
sight’ is ‘not clear’ (approximately 20%) or ‘don’t know’ (13-20%), indicating there could
be further improvement at Group, Regional and Country level.
Other considerations that respondents felt should be taken into account when organising
change delivery include:
-- Building capability
-- Retaining knowledge
-- Working across silos, collaborating across functions
-- Co-locating teams
-- ‘Ring-fencing’ teams into programmes
-- Tone at the top, quality of leadership/sponsorship
-- Accountability of executives
-- Aligning organisation and process before aligning technology architectures
There is some disagreement among respondents about the need for ‘standardisation
of change’ across the bank:
SUMMARY
There was unequivocal support among the survey participants for a combined ‘spoke
and hub’ organisational structure – distributing change expertise across multiple
Business Units (the Federated Model) combined with a global and centralised change
management Centre of Excellence (the Centralised Model). In general, ‘line of sight’ was
regarded as satisfactory at Business Unit level, but needed to be improved at Group,
Region and Country levels.
“Change is far too
complex in the modern
world in terms of process,
people, systems and
infrastructure to apply a
single or small selection
of approaches and
methods.
”CONSULTANT
Recommendations
Consider
organising change
resource around
a combined
Federated and
Centralised Model.
Improve ‘line of
sight’ of change
initiatives
at Country,
Regional and
Group levels.
1 2

42. 41
“… assessing and
developing change
professionals
specifically would
help 100%.
”SPONSOR
INTRODUCTION
It might seem to be stating the obvious that it is critically important for banks to identify,
assess and develop individuals capable of delivering change successfully and the
participants agreed almost unanimously with this statement.
However, when asked how well banks actually deliver in these areas, the participants
expressed the view with similar unanimity that they score poorly, in one of the most clear
cut conclusions in this survey.
Developing Change8
How important do you think it is
for the Bank to identify and assess
individuals capable of delivering
successful change?
CHART 5
53.7%
40.7%
1.9%
3.7%
NO IMPORTANCE
MEDIUM IMPORTANCE
HIGH IMPORTANCE
CRITICAL IMPORTANCE
BANKS SCORE POORLY IN
THE CRITICAL AREAS OF
IDENTIFYING, ASSESSING AND
DEVELOPING INDIVIDUALS
CAPABLE OF DELIVERING CHANGE
SUCCESSFULLY
Over 94% of respondents think that
identifying and assessing individuals
capable of delivering successful change
is either of ‘high importance’ or ‘critical
importance’ to banks (nearly 54% think it
is critical). Contractors, in particular, stress
the critical nature of accurately identifying
and assessing change professionals
while Sponsors and Consultants are
fairly equally split between scoring ‘high
importance’ and ‘critical importance’.
But when asked how well (i.e. how reliably
and regularly) the bank actually identifies
and assesses individuals capable of
delivering successful change, only 7.4% of
respondents feel the bank does ‘very well’.
Over 42% of respondents think the banks
they work for do ‘poorly’ or ‘very poorly’
in this area. Again, the Consultants take a
more negative view, the majority scoring
banks ‘poorly’ or below, while the majority
of Sponsors describe it as ‘about average.’

43. 42
“Everyone is a CV.
No one cares if the
person is excellent or
poor. No one cares if
the person is great at
delivery or poor. It’s
simply pot luck and
who sells themselves
best.
”SPONSOR
“[There is] a lack of
career planning and
execution to develop
empowered and
accountable leaders
who have relevant line,
change, professional
services/dedicated
change and personal
competencies.
”SPONSOR
The three greatest impediments to identifying and assessing individuals capable of
delivering successful change are seen to be:
1. Insufficient Resources (64.8%)
2. ‘Change’ roles seen as different from ‘Business As Usual’, ‘Run the Bank’
roles (64.8%)
3. Lack of internal assessment capability (57.4%)
In addition to current assessment outputs not being seen as valuable for development,
other impediments to banks identifying and assessing individuals better are broken down
into the broad categories of ‘leadership’ and ‘process’:
Leadership
-- a failure of leadership to identify, mentor and reward (on the job) promising
candidates
-- a lack of knowledge and understanding around change
-- a lack of willingness to prioritise spend on decent change talent
-- managers supporting ‘friends’ rather than appointing appropriate resource
-- a lack of systems thinking when it comes to change (i.e. ‘only looking
at things through myopic lenses e.g. 4-5 regulatory programmes all run
separately’)
-- insufficient power to roll out change at lower levels (due to insufficient
understanding of support staff)
-- a lack of accountability for hiring success:
Process
-- Insufficient reliable data
-- wrong assessment criteria (criteria skewed towards rewarding people who
run and deliver straightforward projects)
-- too many low quality people on the market who make it hard for Agencies
and banks to find good resources
On the subject of developing individuals who are capable of delivering successful change,
the picture is virtually the same. Over 80% of respondents think developing change
professionals is either of ‘high importance’ or ‘critical importance’ (46% think it is critical).
Both Contractors and Consultants stress criticality while Sponsors are roughly split
between ‘high importance’ and ‘critical importance.’
There is consistency amongst all audience groups that banks are poor at developing
individuals capable of delivering successful change. Nearly 60% of respondents feel the
banks they work for develop individuals capable of delivering successful change either
‘poorly’ (56%) or ‘very poorly’ (4%):

44. 43
8. Developing Change
The three greatest impediments to banks developing individuals capable of delivering
successful change are seen to be:
1. Lack of internal development capability
2. Insufficient time allocated to development planning
3. Not enough subject matter expertise
Other factors that prevent banks from being more effective in this area include
insufficient resources and change roles being treated as less important than BAU,
‘running the bank’ roles.
Respondents feel that a lack of confidence in the impact of development interventions
(e.g. education, coaching, stretch assignments, new roles) also plays a role:
If Contractors are needed, how much should banks demand that they can ‘hit the
ground running’?
BANKS SHOULD INVEST IN GROWING THEIR OWN PEOPLE TO LEAD
CHANGE
If banks are serious about sustainability, they must focus much more on leadership
assessment and development and invest in talent infrastructure and capability,
systematically and continuously over time.
CURRENT LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IS TOO GENERIC
Sponsors agree that putting in place standard leadership development programmes is a
step in the right direction, but not enough:
“The key is the ability to deliver complex change. You can
have the best people leaders and the best business subject
matter experts out there, but these guys often don’t know
how to deal with things when the s**t hits the fan on a
big programme – then you are going to be stuffed – so,
I think it kind of goes somewhat hand in hand, a good
senior leader would come with some base qualities (people
leadership and business leadership skills), but then focus
on understanding and assessing what change leadership
skills and capabilities they have.
”CONSULTANT
“… change staff are
often Contractors
and there are often
bureaucratic rules
in the organisation
about training
Contractors.
”

45. 44
“
… You can’t have a senior programme leader that is going
to run a programme with 300-400 people, managing a
budget of $100m plus a year that doesn’t have good
leadership skills. They have to deal with senior stakeholders
upward, they have to deal with their team, they will have
externals in there supporting them and you can’t do that
with a one-dimensional leader.
”CONSULTANT
Organisations that practise systematic leadership development see change as a skill
in its own right and treat change leadership as an evolution of standard leadership.
Each step up the ladder comes about through enhanced knowledge, skill and personal
experience.
Frequently this expertise is derived from a combination of formal education, being
coached in how to navigate and drive change and on-the-job experience. Unfortunately,
in many banking institutions:
“
… there does not appear to be enough senior, collective
understanding around organisation change or indeed
talent development to see how investing in this sort of
development might make a difference.
”SPONSOR
“
I don’t know whether developing change leaders gets
talked about, I only see what happens in practice. We
typically hire from outside and haven’t got the pipeline.
”SPONSOR
“
… there is an overfocus on content knowledge over people
skills and development from the start – ‘developing people’
is not part of the LD curriculum.
”SPONSOR
Asked why banks are so poor at developing leaders, respondents said that banks
are very complex organisations with multiple Business Units that don’t complement
each other:
Arguably, they would have a better chance of understanding different parts of the
business if they invested in a systematic programme of rotation based on leadership and
manager assessment from the grassroots up.
“… they have partial
overlaps and funding
links but that is
about it.
”SPONSOR
“… leaders don’t fully
understand each part
of the business.
”SPONSOR

46. 45
8. Developing Change
SUMMARY
Survey participants expressed a clear view that change leadership and management
needs to become embedded in the career path for people in banking and that suitable
training, mentoring and reward structures should be put in place to encourage it.
Recommendations
Hire, develop
and promote
leaders based
on change
capability
assessment.
Make
change an
integral part
of the LD
curriculum.
1
3
5
7
2
4
6
8
Provide rigorous
development
around change
(education,
experiential,
coaching/
mentoring).
Reward and
encourage
the mastery
of complete
leadership skill
sets including
developing people.
Incentivise
change
success in
bonuses.
Place high
potential change
leaders into
increasingly
complex
change roles
and support them.
Embed change
as a discipline
in performance
management
systems.
Make
change a
valuable
career path
in banking.

47. 46
INTRODUCTION
There are two principle sources for the banking industry to learn from in developing
strategies for change: from the past, with the Global Financial Crisis still fresh in the mind,
and from other industries.
Reading between the lines of the survey, it is clear that many of the participants were
expressing a certain amount of frustration at their bank’s unwillingness to look for lessons from
either source: a rather blinkered attitude seems to prevail in the industry, particularly when
there are valuable models in other industry sectors that the banks could adapt and adopt.
BANKS HAVE BEEN SLOW TO LOOK OUTSIDE THEIR OWN INDUSTRY
FOR GUIDANCE IN DELIVERING CHANGE AND ARE STILL CONSIDERED
TO BE POOR AT LEARNING LESSONS FROM THE PAST
Learning Change9
“How banks are
innovating around
change, learning
the failures of the
past is a major
shortcoming.
”CONSULTANT
How well does the Bank learn
lessons about delivering change
successfully from the past?
CHART 6
37%
44.4%
7.4%
9.3%
1.9%
VERY POORLY
POORLY
ABOUT AVERAGE
VERY WELL
DON’T KNOW

48. 47
When asked how well the banks learn lessons about delivering change successfully by
learning from the past, nearly half of respondents (44%) answered ‘poorly’.
Banks are starting to learn that change often turns out to be more complex than first
expected and that it is constant:
“Change is not something you need on a Tuesday in May
and then not again for two more years. There is always
something to change and banks could radically reduce their
reliance on external providers and their costs by creating
some sort of change excellence within themselves.
I think it will take a huge mind shift to do it.
”CONSULTANT
Banks could start this process by placing greater emphasis on recording successes
and failures, as they do in other industry sectors – Construction, for example.
How well does the Bank
learn about delivering change
successfully from other
industries?
CHART 7
24.1%
42.6%
22.2%
5.6%3.7%
1.9%
VERY POORLY
POORLY
ABOUT AVERAGE
VERY WELL
EXCEPTIONALLY WELL
DON’T KNOW
LOOKING BEYOND THE BANK
Many banks are starting to look outside of
Financial Services to other industries for
guidance and support in driving through
change in their organisations. But survey
respondents are not seeing this as having a
major impact. Over 60% feel that the banks
they are working for are ‘poor’ or ‘very
poor’ at learning from other industries when
it comes to change.
Banks can and should learn from other
industries and specifically companies that
are considered systematic, long term, and
sustainable within those industries.
Companies that are not ruined by short
term needs, show predictable, orderly
results, have a strong focus on the supply
chain, know their customers, deal with
large volumes of data, have experience in
rolling out new products year after year,
grow leaders methodically, etc.
9. Learning Change

49. 48
These industry sectors might include:
-- Telecommunications
-- Media
-- Construction
-- Pharmaceuticals
-- Oil and gas
-- FMCG
-- Technology
-- Social media companies
-- Retail
“Every year, Apple releases a product that is better than
the last year. The price point for that product is the same
each year. There is no reason why banks can’t be run the
same way. Each year, you need to ask people to make the
product 10% cheaper and better whether that be through
automation, taking cost out, driving efficiencies, etc.
It needs to be part of the mindset.
”CONSULTANT
BRINGING NEW PEOPLE IN FROM OUTSIDE THE INDUSTRY
New people and new blood could enable banks to change. The Lean Six Sigma
methodology that the manufacturing industry has been using for 20-30 years has only
recently become adopted in banking. Banks are very slow to learn from other industries
generally. However, what can’t be under-estimated is:
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF VALUABLE SOLUTIONS THAT BANKS CAN
ADOPT TO DELIVER CHANGE MORE SUCCESSFULLY IN THE FUTURE
Respondents were asked about potential solutions that could help banks to deliver change
more successfully in the future.
Over 50% of respondents consider the proposed solutions to be either ‘valuable’, ‘very
valuable’ or ‘exceptionally valuable’. The top three solutions are:
1. Change Professional Development support and advice – education,
training, stretch role coaching, etc.
2. Real-time, future-focused change workforce planning
3. Work alongside internal HR teams to improve recruitment of resources
“… a lot of banks are
not greenfield sites,
they are brownfield,
nasty and you need
to have a very good
understanding of that
estate before you start
making decisions.
”CONSULTANT

50. 49
9. Learning Change
A number of these solutions work together. It is nearly impossible to do effective
development without assessment: so some form of evaluation or assessment capability
would be useful to identify individual, team or unit strengths and areas of development.
If standardised, this could also allow Sponsors, internal HR teams and Agencies to
scrutinise and compare internal and external capability using reliable past results as a
guide; thereby offering greater transparency around resource quality and price. This
capability could also form the backbone of change professional audits which, while not
the most popular solution voted for by survey participants, would also greatly assist
change workforce planning.
NOT
VALUABLE
SOMEWHAT
VALUABLE VALUABLE
VERY
VALUABLE
EXCEPTIONALLY
VALUABLE
BETTER CATEGORISATION
OF RESOURCES TO HELP FILL
ROLES FASTER
5.8% 30.8% 36.5% 25.0% 1.9%
PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN CONTRACTORS
AND CONSULTANCIES TO PROVIDE HYBRID
RESOURCING OF CONSULTANTS AND
CONTRACTORS AS A PACKAGE; PUTTING
IN CONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT TEAMS
13.5% 25.0% 30.8% 21.2% 9.6%
WORK ALONGSIDE INTERNAL
HR TEAMS TO IMPROVE
RECRUITMENT OF RESOURCES
9.8% 23.5% 35.3% 23.5% 7.8%
INTERNAL CHANGE PROFESSIONAL
TALENT AUDITS (TO DETERMINE SIZE
AND MAKEUP OF CHANGE POPULATION)
9.8% 29.4% 35.3% 23.5% 2.0%
STANDARDISED CHANGE PROFESSIONAL
EVALUATION TOOLS AND REPORTS
(INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL)
9.8% 39.2% 29.4% 17.6% 3.9%
CHANGE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
SUPPORT AND ADVICE – EDUCATION,
TRAINING, STRETCH ROLE COACHING, ETC.
1.9% 19.2% 34.6% 32.7% 11.5%
CHANGE PROFESSIONAL
ACCREDITATION AND PRICING
BASED ON ‘KNOWN’ WINS
7.8% 37.3% 25.5% 23.5% 5.9%
REAL-TIME, FUTURE-FOCUSED
CHANGE WORKFORCE PLANNING 4.1% 22.4% 28.6% 30.6% 14.3%
TABLE 7
Q How valuable do you think the following solutions could be to Banks
to help them deliver change more successfully in the future?

51. 50
SUMMARY
Banks need to do more to see themselves not as isolated from other industries, but
more as part of the modern business world: the benefit of hindsight can help them to
avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, while the benefit of foresight might see them
emulating successes in other industries, even to the extent of bringing in talent from
outside, particularly from customer-centred businesses.
Recommendations
Monitor and
review change
initiative
successes and
failures from the
perspectives
of multiple
stakeholders.
Explore learning
partnerships
with other
companies
from industries
outside of
banking that:
-- Are not unduly beholden
to short term results
-- Show predictable, orderly
results
-- Have a strong focus on the
supply chain and ‘knowing the
customer’
-- Deal with large volumes of data
-- Manage large amounts of
regulatory change
-- Have experience in rolling out
new products year after year
-- Grow leaders methodically
1 2