What can we learn from difficult – or even failed – change? Learning from e-tolls in addressing loadshedding.
South Africa (20 December 2022) – It was recently reported that South Africa experienced 124 days of national loadshedding in 2022. Trying to solve this crisis by implementing changes to bolster our nation’s power supply has been an almost 15-year battle for the government, and currently, there does not appear to be a clear end in sight.
But over the past year, we have seen glimmers of hope in a national energy plan – though sadly, there are no confirmed dates of when many plan elements will be delivered.
From a change management perspective, implementing such a plan is clearly one of massive change and requires an equal amount of commitment and the will to make it happen. However, as South Africans, we have seen the pitfalls of executing vastly complex plans without managing the change, and by this, I refer to one of our more recent public service examples: one being the failed maintenance of the e-tolls system.
Recent media analysis has labelled the road-tolling project an utter failure, with the government indirectly admitting it as well. I believe that by looking back at the handling of the e-tolls, we can learn much about just how difficult change can be when specific vital components of change management are missing – and determine new solutions to assist with the load-shedding crisis.
Sponsorship
In managing change, one of the most critical elements is the sponsorship to lead the change. Research tells us that as much as 73% of projects that meet/exceed their objectives are associated with excellent sponsorship. Without sponsors to lead, plans stagnate, stakeholders resist, and the will to change wanes.
The South African National Roads Agency Limited (Sanral) and the National Government were initially meant to take the overall lead on e-tolls. Now the ball has landed in the Gauteng provincial government’s court. Finance minister Enoch Godongwana announced that 30% of Sanral’s R47 billion debt will now have to be covered by Gauteng – namely, the province’s taxpayers. Few leaders have been willing to own the e-toll debacle, and this lack of sponsorship has played a significant part in the system’s downfall.
As we look into the current load-shedding situation, it appears that leadership – even the president himself – is taking the situation seriously. However, unless this sponsorship continues through the introduction of new Independent Power Producers and private sector stakeholders, the national energy plan could be tied up in further delays.
Commitment
Related Story
This is one of the most critical outcomes sought in organisational change. How people affected by the change incorporate new mindsets and ways of working in a new environment reflects levels of leader involvement, communication and coalition and, consequently, their commitment to change.
It’s vital to ensure that essential elements, like budget, change management strategy and processes, are put in place. When the e-tolls first made their way into the public realm, there were attempts to enforce fines on those who refused to pay, and this resulted in a legal matter that rose to the Constitutional Court. However, as civil disobedience around the system grew, with few victories for Sanral in the courts, this commitment lessened. However, rather than scrapping the system, accepting the failure, and learning from it, there continued to be half-hearted threats around fines and plans to possibly save the tolls.
To solve the load-shedding conundrum, we will have to see more sustained commitment, budgetary allocations and coalitions that facilitate commitment and more articulate, ongoing updates on the government’s strategy to end it.
Inclusivity
There are few things more important when managing change than including the people directly affected by it. All parties must play a role when bringing about change (organisationally or socially), but failing to include them all in the planning phases means no one is clear on their role.
Throughout the e-tolls saga, the government failed to take public sentiment and input seriously. This lack of faith in public opinion ultimately turned the public against the system, leading to the aforementioned public campaign refusing to pay the tolls. Meanwhile, government discourse around load-shedding has been mostly one-directional, with apologies and updated plans of action making their way to the public through the media (e.g. Eskom se Push).
However, civil society organisations are forming to address the social impacts of load-shedding, giving more people a platform to push alternative viewpoints on load-shedding to the fore.
Conclusion
Naturally, the sheer scale of a societal change (and the development of vital infrastructure) can make it more difficult than organisational change. However, the principles remain the same. If you want cooperation, you must build awareness in people that they need to change and express what the change looks like – which may include managing expectations around what the next few years hold. However, we can’t place the blame entirely on leadership, as perhaps we as a society haven’t been loud enough in our disdain for load-shedding.
We can ask ourselves, what more could we have done to insist on inclusivity (an enshrined value in our constitution) in determining how we fund some areas of infrastructural growth without depleting other areas, and what and how would we be happy to pay up for this growth. We certainly made it clear around e-tolls, which ultimately led to dismantling a dysfunctional system.
As we celebrate this December and commemorate the Day of Reconciliation, we must remember our own roles in effecting change.
by 