Yesterdays post was about change and questions asked, or not.
Today is a look at what the answers say. And, likely, what the next questions need to be.
Stakeholders can grab hard to certain things and refuse to let go (or in the parlance of some CM’s, replace). There are a variety of reasons for this. They may have wanted to do something their own way. There may have been functional or local issues that were not being addressed at a higher level. Tools may have been weak or inappropriate. An individual may have pushed things to further their own climb. The organization may have, usually unwisely and mostly unknowingly, rewarded them for actions that now do not make sense for the end state.
Holding tight to things created in the past, existing in the present and not necessary for the end state might just be resistance. What we call it is not as crucial as finding out why this thing is important. Listening and taking in the answer with empathy (little questions mixed in here to build this) is essential- and probably THE most valuable CM competency. Because a trust level of understanding gives permission to ask more questions to get to the true importance of this thing.
Can you show the end state to be more powerful than the pull of this thing they hold tight to?
Is it functionality?
Better (even if different) functionality is fairly easy to show.
Is it accountability?
This one is tougher since things get harder at the individual level when measurement increases. If the end state has a smart balance of compensation for efficiency this is an easier discussion.
Is it comfort?
At least in the current environment it is easy to show comfort is ephemeral. What exists today may be gone tomorrow. That applies to jobs, culture, process, structure and environment. If something will likely change, then does it not make sense to be part of creating the replacement?
Is it just fear of the unknown matched with distrust from previous failed efforts?
What helps? Visible and available change resources (placed high in the organization). Using senior resources instead of junior (part of the reason a lot of previous initiatives have failed- cost cutting, insistence on internal resources and misunderstanding about change). Better connections to leadership for the change process. Better contact at the individual (or at least team) level. STARTING early.
The key is to get to the importance level, from the stakeholders perspective, so that you can tell if that is being addressed in the change process because it is important at a higher level. If it is not that important then the stakeholder needs alternatives or must be shown a different perspective to adjust the importance level.
