|
|
Change is always about action. Or for the historical, resistance approaches, inaction.
For action to happen there must be some stimulus that gets it started and keeps it going. The trigger/switch at the individual level is motivation. That foundation out of the way, who is in charge of the triggers?
The Individual
You would think it would start here. The individual most likely assumes it will start somewhere else. When an individual has chosen to do something on their own, say find a job, they are certainly responsible for motivation. They will feed that with the carrots and sticks of different opportunities. But when an individual is expected to do something they relinquish control of motivation.
The Boss
Which brings us to the first level leaders. They are the closest to core motivational action. They have the chance to effect action. Unfortunately they are the bosses- as my kids say, “stop bossing me around”. Doubly unfortunate is the fact that they are also individuals. They are saddled with the need to both act and be responsible for action. With so much action on the radar it is easy to forget that action requires motivation.
The Mid Level Manager
It is here that the carrots and sticks are stacked, measured, bargained for and grouped. Since carrots and sticks are a fairly weak motivator, force and coercion are often chosen as alternatives. So now we have an individual who is also a boss delivering blows and wishing they could somehow satisfy everyone- which would probably increase motivation and therefore the right actions.
The Acronym Leaders
At this level you get your title shortened, from seven and eight letters (and more) to 2- VP. Not only must motivation at an individual level (which of course includes the VP) be considered, but there is now an invisible core energy centered around function (read skill, focus and a certain kind of specific motivation) that has a powerful action/inaction lever. Competing motivators and competing actions (or not) appear. The more this person takes charge of functional motivators the more they tend to run head-on into disparate organizational motivators- especially if they are wrapped up in a change package.
Enter the Figureheads
SVP’s.
Their idea of individual now means something completely different. Their understanding of motivators has been tarnished by the rise through the other levels. My favorite motivator- make this make sense- has lost its importance next to, “here is the list make it happen”. The SVP’s have a confusing list of competing interests, all of our categories, plus functions in general, sometimes the combination of functions (who do not always get along- think sales and marketing), the board (since many of them sit there), which means shareholders (a category of individuals that has a serious, often detrimental effect on motivation and action)…
Which leads to the Founder/CEO/Evangelist
It is just as easy to say they are in charge of motivation as it is to say the same of the individuals. For both you might just be right. While this individual (mixing categories again) has the weight of the world on their shoulders they also have all the potential for motivation that can create both action and the motivation to act. They can guide systems, processes, structure and rewards. They can acknowledge (hint- biggest motivator for action), stir collaboration, mediate disputes and discrepancies and bring in the tools and resources to motivate worthwhile action (another hint- see make sense above).
We might have to call it a tie.
In the hierarchical structure, horizontal/matrixed or not, the top person is ultimately, on paper, in charge of motivation. In a democratic, each-person-is-a-shining-light culture, the individual is in charge of every action (not necessarily responsible, just in charge). So it is a tie. Since each person is an individual tie broken.
Which creates a nasty circular looped argument for change management to focus on the individual in terms of action. Search “change management” and you will find approaches that slot right in.
Motivation requires an input, which creates energy to stimulate action. Skip the input (makes sense is one) and go straight to the energy (urgency?) and you get…an equal and opposite reaction.
Approaches to action/change that look at the organizations world from an individual stakeholder perspective back at all the sticks, all the carrots, all of our categories and all of the other angles that influence motivated action (the best kind for change, read “Champions”) …work.
Those approaches create Vision to Work… for a change.
(couldn’t resist a plug )
When it exists is like a sponge. It pulls in until it fills to capacity.
This is something to consider, leverage and acknowledge for change management. It is not necessarily something to be fed and nurtured.
What is Loyalty in the context of change management?
Loyalty to the cause
This is a connection to the core purpose of the change that creates interest, motivation and action. A technologist may quickly be on board for an IT implementation (or not of course). Someone sitting in HR may jump right on board for a human capital initiative. A senior executive may pencil in more and more free space on their calendar for dialogue and exchange for a program that touches their function.
Loyalty to the company
This is the version we think of when we see the word loyalty tied to work or workplace. It might infer staying power in terms of retention, it might mean atmosphere and culture, it might mean the tenacity with which people stick to goals/strategy/plans. It might even be the level of evangelism from participants extending outside internal operations-social marketing.
Ongoing connection
Loyalty that is truly strong is ongoing. Loyalty has a distinct time connection and a measure of strength over that time frame. Ideally it is increasing strength-measured differently for each individual and/or stakeholder.
Which brings me to the sponge.
Loyalty has both a pull and a maximum limit. The expectation of loyalty in change management often creates that maximum limit quickly. This is the common pattern of project/change management- shove something in, assume loyalty and get-…wait for it…Resistance.
Thankfully loyalty has a rosy side too. The pull. The more things (our things being change) make sense and connect in some way the smoother and more powerful the pull. Loyalty tends to spread easily once the pull begins. Charismatic leaders can help with the pull- someone has to communicate the “make sense”. The pull tends to produce evangelists who can increase the speed and, at times, the capacity of the pull.
When it is strong loyalty should be acknowledged within the change process. The acknowledgement can be kudos in communications, illustrations of commitment, examples of time saved through dedication and collaboration, etc. This is the right approach for feeding/nurturing/leveraging loyalty.
What does not always makes sense is rewarding loyalty.
Think of the expectations airline miles have created. Think of the backlash about blackout periods. Rewarded loyalty has a scale of expectations that increases quickly which decreases loyalty if not continuously fed.
Loyalty’s dark side is group think, retention of the lowest common denominator and potentially reduced innovation. In terms of change management the dark side is models and approaches that make incorrect assumptions or are based on internal best practices. The way we do it, a form of cultural loyalty, may not always be the most efficient or effective (effective adding a human capital component).
Keeping all this in mind, change management can build loyalty by rewarding skill and showing how that skill connects to end states and the health of the change entity. If compensation structures do the same bonuses can be added that tie to change participation.
Kudos always work. They work because they are after the fact and specific. Incentives are the opposite, before and general. They do not work so well because of the expectations they create.
When it comes to loyalty, specifically reward rather than generally encourage.
What is the role of the C level leader for change management initiatives?
It depends on the specific C role and the size, scope and breadth of the initiative. This “it depends” list is a good way to look at our question because it follows the pattern that change tends to go through-and the order.
Size
This is a measure of how big this thing is going to be. The scale can be in terms of time (as in months to multi-year), number of people that will need to be involved or the budget needed.
Scope
Hopefully an area that is looked at and analyzed early on -strategically. After that it is the amount of resources, times and money that will be needed in each track or stream of the roll out. This area just gets bigger and bigger in its creep if the “hopefully” sentence is left out or skimmed over. It is this area that CM can bring cost controls (I know not a typical role for CM- but one that makes sense).
Breadth
When this initiative, especially if it is transformative, begins to pour like water over the organization how far will the edge of the water go? Uncomfortable as it may be for linear, straight line, 2 D, time based thinkers (and doers) the water goes in every direction. The change process is a little like a funnel turned upside down. Early on the flow is controlled. As time goes on and the initiative gets closer to the end state more and more stakeholders get touched. The funnel opens up and the spread gets bigger. How big that spread will be is breadth. “Will be” is a signal that this must be looked at from the very beginning planning stages. In keeping with my change management philosophy you might want to read these paragraphs backwards.
CEO
If the change is a transformation (culture, process, structure or all) the CEO is the owner. If you have not read my previous posts (or Alan Weiss, my tweak of definition comes from his writings) the owner pays for it and is the figurehead. Although admittedly the budgets usually come from the first and second horizontal (fortune 100) so the CEO might be a half owner.
Her/his role is to absolutely insure that this change makes sense. It can make sense based on data, based on emotion or based on reason/intuition. As a communicator the breadth category is the most important. Breadth can be a lead in for the other three. Please ,not the other way around- size and scope leading to breadth, that is just ugly (but common) creep.
As the organizational leader I think the CEO also had a previous role- or has one before this big change- to create an entity in the organization to orchestrate change. With that there is the ability to apply so the CEO can lead and communicate.
For all of the smaller less transformative initiatives the CEO can serve as the introducer of the change with an early communication, can be inserted into the process to boost something along or provide clarification and can serve as a motivator (I mean that in a helpful rather than coercive way- if you are using coercion you either have the wrong model or you missed the “make sense” step).
CFO
For the big changes scope will be the hands on role. That is where the money is spent (or saved). There is a version of the “makes sense” assumption here. Every expense is in competition with another. It benefits all change for the CFO to understand and be proficient in communicating that constantly balancing scale. The CFO must understand and learn to be comfortable with the 15% CM line item. A random number maybe- I have seen 10% constantly run into problems and 20% fairly quickly taken away, so 15 is our compromise. With a CMG (change management group) those costs can be spread operationally.
The CFO may also have leadership, figurehead responsibilities if the engagement is within their function (or reporting structure- here is an interesting article for CFO’s and CIO’s on the ownership of IT http://tinyurl.com/2ajrl3q take the CM part with a grain of salt though).
CIO
Hands on for the technology layer of the change. A leader if the change is strictly an implementation. There is a fine line here though. All changes in technology involve behavioral or skill change, so the CIO quickly becomes a figurehead for the “people side”. Did I say figurehead? I might have meant scapegoat. In order to avoid the passing of the buck for blame it helps for the CIO to hone their empathy skills and their knowledge of the changes individuals must go through if you “move the key on the keyboard”. Following that key to its new spot is Adoption and in that area the CIO is usually the owner.
As with all C level roles there is a responsibility for the make-sense-communications. Thanks to the CFO’s interpretation of budgeting and the CEO’s explanations of strategy to work connections the new tool should slot right in-correct?
COO
Is the right hand person to the CEO (and possibly in succession) so read section one first.
For the big initiatives size is their category. What kinds of resources will be needed? Because the COO is responsible for corralling all resources in an efficient way. All is both the change and day to day operations. This is typically a mud wrestling match with the dirtiest (and I don’t mean finishing covered with mud) winning. The COO is combination referee and parent at the mall. Their role has a lot of explaining and a lot of measurement of value and results.
The CMG is one way to keep that balanced and to support the responsibilities of this C role. CM can be paid for with the many operational savings it uncovers. It can be leveraged by the COO to create collaboration and surface new ideas and approaches. While it does not always seem apparent that surfaced innovation can either save or make money for the future the COO has their hands on possibility every day. It is their role in the change process to pull that out.
CLO
First deserves more credit (and more leverage).
They are responsible for making all of the other C level responsibilities work and get better.
For a transformation their immediate role is to provide the training and development needed to pave the way for the change. As the leader of that area they have a responsibility to illustrate the spot stakeholders are in. The “spot” is time, place, capability and gaps in knowledge and ability. Their challenge is to fill in the gaps for the change readiness (here is a good use of this term- it is one of the change words I do not like).
The CLO may also be the owner if the transformation falls within their function or influence. But most learning initiatives quickly or soon will become something the rest of the organization can use. Ownership may scale up in those instances.
All C level
Your executive summary is that the C level is heavily responsible for front loading change. The next person in line, the next landing of the buck, is an implementer. Implementation must have structure, approach, reasonable method and a lot of make sense. They do not have the power, influence or dollars to make that happen. Expecting them to is not fair and is, I think, the main reason for change “failure”.
And as a comical note Wikipedia lists 46, I am not kidding, different C level roles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_title.
This http://horizontalchange.com/2009/12/dandelions-in-the-lawn-organic-change-management-design/ most popular post so far must strike a nerve. I don’t have the luxury of knowing who or what type of person links to it, but the numbers most likely make it a range. Interested because you are stuck in a field of organic change? Interested because you are worn down by stagnancy? Think that if the ground swells someone above might pay attention? Or just like it when the pot gets stirred?
So lets just say thanks to the last couple of years we should be happy to have any kind of my kind of urgency- my kind being energy toward work not the chicken-on-its-last-leg-kind. What can be gained from organic change movements in an organization?
Energy
I have learned over the years that while not ideal change management can be dropped in anywhere and provide benefits. Change does not happen without energy, both the hyper and the inner calm kind. If you are a leader and you did not stay ahead of your organic change it is now your responsibility to direct the flow. Just remember energy dissipates-sometimes quickly.
Teamwork
Organic change to continue relies on waves of connection tied to, usually immediate, outcomes. The energy tends to build and attach itself in apparent disconnected areas. Take a breath if you are a leader. Those types of connections are the key to horizontal change (at any level) and to the spider web of change. Beware though group think and the power of new relationships to detach people from business objectives.
Innovation
As soon as someone breaks away, in their mind, from hierarchy and the status quo ideas flood in like rain from above. Rain, floods and water are common insertions in writing to wipe something away. Change at its core must always wipe something away to create a spot for the new. The hard part about innovation and strategy is what to wipe out and what to replace it with. Don’t let the ideas get away and don’t let the ideas get away from you.
Movement
Not the same as energy.
I am surprised and puzzled, often, at how little actually happens in large organizations. What does happen, like politics (because of internal politics) is typically balanced by something else and so nothing really happens. With any organic change pods something is happening. Be refreshed and if it is good go after the balancing mechanisms…uh people. This is a spot where I might even be convinced to use the word resistance…
So what we have here is an exercise in digging up the dandelions, possibly even showing them off in a vase for awhile. What you do not want is to fire up the lawnmower and plow them down like weeds.
One persons weed is another’s salad.
 Just the fact the there is a role for CM on any given initiative, program or project is a plus. It sends a signal to participants that the transition from one thing to another is complicated and difficult enough to warrant sheparding by a person rather than just through communication or project management.
As a Conduit
A CM resource external, internal or a designated leader will consider it their responsibility to make connections that are obvious, but for some reason are not happening. Leader to stakeholder and vice-versa, function to function, peer to peer across functions, internal to external resources to name a few.
As a Leadership Guide
This an extension of the conduit plus. It is difficult in organizations to get valuable feedback as a leader and to give the same as an employee/stakeholder. The CM often falls into the role of coach/mentor/advisor between the leading and the hands on work.
As a Communication Lever
In the same third party sense the communication for a change process can weave in operational interaction in a safer and more approachable manner than mandates and barked orders.
As an Organizational Assessment avenue
The process of gathering information for the end state descriptions reveals a wealth of data about the organization. Companies rarely have an avenue for objectively evaluating their people, structure and process. CM (with a good practitioner) shines a light in all three areas.
As an Operational Builder
If Change Management is an entity within the organization all of the above combined with the regular change management activities and expectations can address efficiency, collaboration, cross functional accountability and overall connection between strategy and implementation.
Good start. The primary competency of a change management consultant, I am beginning to think, is anticipation. Or ,so you do not confuse this with some fight or flight tendency (also well honed in CM practitioners) intuition might be a better word. We can tell you what will happen as each little action reverberates across the change web. We have probably seen something like this before, people are people and because of that, mistakes are consistently repeated from organization to organization and person to person.
Odds are you are not thinking of:
- How your assumptions effect your approach
- The true effect the change will have on operational efficiency
- The true effect operations will have on the path to the end state
- Importance of placement of change process- usually too low in organization
- Importance of timing of CM- usually too late
- The effect of leadership (different than the “importance of”)
- The power of one (how well is your approach going to acknowledge at the individual level)
- Context and big picture- will a stakeholder know where they fit and where you are in the process?
- Your performance system and its stranglehold on change
- Your leaders and their stranglehold on change (see previous bullet- not necessarily their fault)
- How you are dealing with assessment and measurement
- The difference between training and awareness
- Leveraging transformational initiatives for succession and professional development
- Accountability, responsibility and “ownership”
It is a much longer list, but you get the idea. Or do you?
If you really want to “transform” your organization looking at a much bigger picture is essential.
If your approach is the typical one of firing CM into the fray and hoping for little fall out this is an unnecessary list… until the next time you try to make a big change.
Inside organizations, guiding leaders and stakeholders into the future I find myself asking the same question over and over-
Why are there so many disconnects?
Or, more appropriately, Why are there so many missing connections?
The more I explore horizontal, and now circular and diagonal concepts for change and operation, the more I see that there is a missing piece. No person or entity is responsible for “the whole”. The whole being a perspective that can pull in all of the disparate angles, viewpoints and personalities and arrange them to get to goals. at the highest level. Within organizations it feels as if everything is organized around timelines in a linear fashion. Even strategy sessions seem more like strategic implementation work rather than innovative “whole picture” discussions.
Maybe we are just a little cursed by human nature to approach life and work this way?
Or maybe something is missing in current organizational structure?
Let’s see what we have-
CEO
This would be the closest. The smaller the organization the more it might be possible. Odds are the first instinct of the CEO is to delegate which then separates everything into functions. And our chance at the wrapper disappears. Although a trusted advisor, external, inserted here might be the best solution. But that only gives the perspective and does not necessarily make the connection to strategy and operations.
COO
Here, maybe. Except that senior operational leaders by necessity have a very operational perspective. Probabilities are more powerful here than possibilities. In other words operations overpowers strategy (if strategy even really exists here, it doesn’t always).
SVP of Strategy
See previous category and flip the coin over. Strategy by necessity, operations by default. If there is such a title or person that is a start since the competencies for this role would have to include a whole lot of big picture perspective. From my viewpoint this role has its own wrapper with “business” written all over it. People make business happen.
SVP of HR
So then how about HR? With HR and Strategy we have the same coin with two sides problem. One is business, one is people. And while senior HR leaders try hard to treat people as assets, the transactional side of the function usually wins. People then become overhead and commodities to buy and sell (and depreciate). While HR leaders the world over wish it was different and have been working to make changes for more than my lifetime…when “the table” finished the musical chairs they were all full, leaving HR stranded and out of the game.
The other “C’s” and SVP’s
High level implementation. Functional versions of our wrapper may exist here. Which means this might be a good place to get a description of our end state for this organizational wrapper. We would need someone with the whole picture view to weave it together. Finding the solution now seems in the realm of a tweaked traditional form of change management.
Working toward the description of and the creation of something to address this glaring gap in organizations has become a passion for me. I can see how it would play out. I can see and, at times, describe the end state. To fill the gap is a colossal web to weave. I do have a whole picture view though. That is the seed for change.
If as a high level leader, you start with the assumption that CM is about implementing it will dictate the when, the where and the how of guiding the change process. If you are operating vertically and or within a function you might be OK. If however changing is an ongoing and repeating (in many ways) process you will be in trouble with that assumption. In fact you will have an organization that looks like all the rest.
If CM is about implementation then it needs to be at the point in your strategic process where task begins and the worker bees are involved. It needs to be placed within functions where all the project work happens. It needs to follow closely the PMO’s process for implementation. Sound familiar?
So what if CM is not just about implementation?
Then you can actually create a loop back into corporate strategy to head off bad ideas and bad initiatives. You can have a guide for very senior executives for what will happen if this strategy moves into an implementation phase. You can have a level, entity, group, focus above and before the machinations of change. It is there where you can leverage CM to build leadership, to weave horizontal connections, to increase collaboration, to check measure and test approach and to mentor the lower level CM practitioners who do operate at the implementation level.
If you assume CM is about implementation you severely limit your options as a leader.
The long post will come later, or in an article, this is just to clear the air and point out a trend I see.
Change Management is two things-
- The overarching umbrella for the connection between strategy and work.
- The process within the organization through projects, programs and initiatives that helps facilitate that connection.
The umbrella- I call it Horizontal Change so that this definition is not necessary (Until enough clients and practitioners decide that is a good term we will go with the current confusion). Horizontal Change takes strategy and defines it into end states so that people are willing to contribute their skills, competencies and expertise with work. It in no way assumes that working happens automatically, or through coercion or because someone devised a strategy or plan.
The way the work gets done is Change Management (or the second definition sans my own term). That plays out with interviews, brown bags, on line and off line communication formal and informal, training, development, leadership, leadership development, timelines, PMO’s and project tasks, some brainstorming of strategic implementation (which is NOT strategy or even necessarily the implementation of strategy) and a lot of effort and list-crossing-off.
I have yet to see an organization that creates and differentiates the two from the top down. You can imagine I am waiting (and searching ) for the dream client to shine a light and make this crystal clear. I have yet to see an organization that has a true grasp all the way through of the connection between end states and the work, energy and motivation of individuals (the internal practitioners and the HR departments are howling in protest…).
The trend-
Is to try to do this. Before I got on my soap box, organic versions of this were popping up all over the place. Unfortunately, the meaning of organic has nothing to do with senior leadership and the letter “C”. However the light shines, however the understanding begins, the start of the trend is a good sign.
Change Management is often a race to stay ahead of the setting sun. By setting sun I mean demise of the initiative itself. I am running out of fingers to count the times I have been involved in or seen the complete stop of major initiatives (most in the 7 figure + range).
Here are a few reasons why this happens-
- Change Management is added too late
- Strategy does not connect well to resources and motivation
- Strategy is not present, misguided or unrealistic
- Timeline is unrealistic
- The people are unrealistic (yes sometimes there is TRUE resistance- see bullet one through four)
Change Management is often seen as a training, communications, speed the project along discipline. I cringe when I see something like “provide training, communications and accelerate project implementation”. Cars accelerate.
As a result of this perspective (one seen in both practitioner and client I might add) change fits at the beginning of the implementation of the change, somewhere a little after all of the planning, all of the designing , all of the making of the task lists. Which is exactly where it falls 99% of the time (my stat). And one step behind the setting sun.
To make this worse, and effectively make Change Management even less relevant, the practice of CM is used as an overlap to other processes. The perfect example is placing the machinations (word chosen wisely-CM deals with people) of CM under the watch of the project manager. Or in the hierarchy having CM report to HR, or IT, or Finance or any function.
In both these cases, perspective and placement, CM will be well behind the setting sun on every initiative.
Unrealistic timelines. I will leave the timing of tasks to a project management/operations discussion. It is the timing of the coordination of people and their human nature luggage that is important here. With the change process weaved into the whole from true beginning to end state there is actually is the possibility of speeding up timelines. But that will only work when the original timelines included that human nature component. Which we know rarely happens because CM is added well after that planning stage.
Strategy.
This is corporate strategy I am referring to not the strategy of implementation. Many consultants and their clients confuse the plan for implementation as strategy. Use “strategic implementation” and you might be able to language and separate the two meanings. They are different and stakeholders are not only well aware of the difference, but confused when leadership and engagement leaders do not know or see the difference.
Corporate strategy is the vision of the leaders, the possibilities in the current (or near future) environment, the direction of the organization as a whole, the business objectives on a high level to get to profit, success and sustainability. Every one of your initiatives should, and most certainly does, connect in some way with at least one part of this definition. Why is it then that there is no thread or glue to make this connection?
If you have operational change management in your organization you might actually be able to have a component that looks like the current approach to change that makes sense and works. If you understand, as a leader, that change management is about the connection of work to vision and vice versa then you will provide the avenues for that connection to happen. If you understand that the moment of the “idea” for an initiative is about the time Change Management needs to be added…
…you just might get a polar version of a day where the day is long and the sun sets right at the end state.
|
|
