|
|
An easy change scenario-
The organization will at some point move a performance system from paper based to online access (say into an SAP module). The money and energy is not there for the technical transfer (and the change that goes with it). There is the ability to address the system itself. There are grumblings from stakeholders about the ties between measures, performance and rating (especially against others in similar but different functions). The icing on the cake is a sudden realization from executives that there is both room and need for “enhancement” (yesterdays blog word for change http://horizontalchange.com/2010/08/the-adult-bad-word/).
The approach is straight forward. The components-
- An understanding of the framework for the future software
- An explanation of what the performance system is for and what it should accomplish
- A deep and broad swath of data, perspective (good and not so) and idea gathering
- Potentially benchmarking of other companies
- A clear end state description of the system in action from the stakeholders perspective
To be able to run through these components well ahead of the software implementation is a dream come true for a change agent. It gives a very real chance to construct (or tweak or reconstruct) a system that feeds the objectives of the business, supports core values and makes it clear what works to be rewarded and what does not. With the right kind of feedback from stakeholders the solution can be the best of the current turned into an efficient and fair system and process.
You, no doubt, see many ways this will not be easy…
Odds are good that functions have fertilized the daisies (http://tinyurl.com/2cgbkpz for my organic change blog post) to the point where cross functional comparisons are apples to oranges. They are most likely attached to their way.
An inherent difficulty with performance rewards is the fact that one pool is divided in some way. Across the board pay raises are not common. In short not everyone can get an “A” no matter how hard they try. In every rating meeting I have attended there is also the edge from one level to the next, say high potential to not. Each of the leaders want their people to make the cut above the edge. In their justifications they often stray from fair comparisons (which can be remedied in the re-tweak of the process and measures).
They key for this type of “easy” change is to understand how the current system is viewed, and reacted to, by the stakeholders and then fashion a structure and process that has measures that will be acceptable. If there is also clarity about the reason for the performance system in the first place (that’s not flippant, it is amazing how much time is spent in this area with negligible effect).
Make it make sense and make it work- Easy Change.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, change excercise, Examples, Garrett Gitchell, stakeholders, vision to work
Many of change managements “less than successes” (I am growing tired of seeing the word failure and change tied together with little explanation) are a result of misguided perceptions, false assumptions and detrimental naivety. Here are a few-
- Having the IT manager responsible for change for technical initiatives
- Having the project manager responsible for change for all initiatives
- Crowning someone buried in the middle of the organization with a role that touches all
- Change fails 70% of the time (what is that stat and how is it possibly helpful for anything but fear marketing of books and models?)
- There are 8 steps and it is essential to put them in order
- Urgency is a positive for change
- Everything must be run through a committee
- Once we figure this out we can “run it up the chain” works
- Everyone has to be involved
There are many more.
Before you hit the ground running stop and look at your assumptions- they may haunt you throughout the process if not.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, horizontal change management
Your stakeholders are most likely frozen with eyes wide open thanks to the last couple of turbulent and less than promising years.
Think of the deer transfixed by the headlights. They are not exactly scared; they do not seem to be curious; they are spell bound. Honk the horn and they do not move. Blink the lights, the same. Turn off the lights and they stand there wondering what to do, with their attention fixated as though by a spell (one of the definitions of transfixed- here are some others http://tinyurl.com/2cn5cmq).
As a C level leader what to do?
- Acknowledge
- Sum up your organizations recent past
- Leverage the good
- Own up to the bad
- Describe the future
- Create and manage a transition period
Acknowledge
Whether or not any given individual found themselves in the glaring lights does not matter. We have all seen, heard or been touched by the nasty spell of economic downturn. That must be acknowledged. Since you, as a leader, are part of the herd too, some of your own personal examples might help. Acknowledgement does not mean a continuation of negative and pessimistic perspectives. You must ease yourself out of the headlights and look ahead.
The Past
As in the last, let’s say, two years.
Odds are you tightened the purse strings, your are lean, maybe you even had some time for retrospection and introspection on an organizational level. If you were smart you took advantage of the slowdown. Put that all together in a message and sum it up in a tidy package as if you and the organization have already moved past that spot into a positive and more profitable future.
The Good
Is most likely represented in cold numbers to show smart consolidation. Tread lightly here since most stakeholders will not see the good in anything from the recent past (unless they owned it, then they will appreciate the connection). The best way to transition from difficult situations is to look at how the time was managed. If individually or collectively as an organization you did what you could then there will be good. If you are the deer or you have let the herd stand in the road for a long time…
Own up
There are plenty of times when we do what we can and what we think is right, practical and responsible only to find in hindsight we were on the wrong track. Use that hindsight to your advantage to illustrate not what could have been but why your process got you to where you are. Doing this well will give you a foundation for process and structure improvements to tag onto initiatives tomorrow.
New End States
Your first instinct in transitioning out of yesterday and into tomorrow is probably to illustrate a clear vision. Be careful here. You are likely to articulate a vision you wish for. In between is the one you want. Better to dig into the one you need. By you I mean literally you, but also the organization and its individuals. Think and communicate in terms of practical end states. Heavily load your change management front end to come up with clear, shorter length attainable end states that have easy participation points.
Transition
The headlights were particularly glaring for the deer in your herd this time around. The car has stopped; the herd is safe. Guide them off the road slowly and smoothly. Because of the participation and engagement needed with front end change management transition is built in. The addition of inordinately positive external resources (if they also have a full quiver of empathy) can help you to time the transition period. Do not with run blindly across the road at this point. The last thing you need is for fear to turn to panic.
Every difficult situation is a leverage point for the future. The deer in the headlights is not scared, just mildly stunned. Take advantage of the fact that in the headlights, for a brief moment all is calm, centered and in the moment. The perfect foundation for positive change.
Technorati Tags: C level, CEO, change management consultant, Change Strategy, executive communications, Garrett Gitchell, strategy, vision, vision to work
Shhh. Don’t let your competition in on this- Organizational Development (OD) can be done at the same time as Change Management. Top Secret tip number two- it can be one in the same person (or small team). If you are a smart executive you will work with consultants who see this as part of their role (if you know my writings this is where the hint comes in- we are not talking Big 3 here [it is still 3 isn’t it?]).
Executive Development
No matter the intensity of the change role for an external consultant there are always stray hours in between that can be used to coach and guide executive development. On one of my recent engagements I let Director and Senior Director leaders know I was available for my hour and a quarter drive in the morning and evening to the client site. On a long engagement (in this case 9 months) there is a lot of that time. Enough so that I was able to develop simple coaching plans around the leaders role in change and guide them through skill and competency development. I personally consider this a stealth value add for my own clients.
Training
Design is a very important part of communicating change. With a little extra effort (and the ability, competencies and knowledge to teach) the CM can build skills for Manager level team leads around the design, organization and dissemination of information. The same goes for project management. There are countless one on one sessions in every large change between the external CM and internal stakeholders and line level leaders. Well thought out (by you the client and the external) these interchanges can have components of skill development- the skills which you, of course, uncovered in your initial data gathering and development of the end state description.
Process
A good trusted advisor high level CM can be your executive eyes and ears (as well as right hand) to the organization. Unless the current initiative is specifically addressing process you may not want to, under cover, change it. You can however cull helpful tidbits from the change exchange that happens quickly and through less layers with your external agent. Given the chance to be an “undisclosed source” most stakeholders will readily give ideas, perspective and input that no amount of organizational suggestion boxes will ever uncover.
Structure
Repeat above surveillance for structure. Process is how tasks play out and how people interact. Structure is the support, tools and reporting. The two together always have a treasure trove of secrets that can be gleaned.
Your own development and introspection
This one is the trickiest and usually requires a 007 level external. They are your trusted advisor. Trust can come from transparency and honesty. What better way to develop that than to trade suggestions back and forth for improvement and enhancement. You have a chance to be each others consultant. Unlike the real spy game you should both stay on the same side (no double agents in this relationship).
As an executive do not miss the chance to build organizational development into your change process and interactions. The current environment looks to be external resource heavy for quite some time. Make sure the transition to a better balance of internal and external is part of your change strategy.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, CEO, change awareness, change management consultant, Executive, Garrett Gitchell, Value, vision to work
When consultants are “on the beach” (the inside term for not on client engagements) they react completely different from employees who feel close to losing their job. They dig in, retrench and create. Most consultants are itching to have a chance to build collateral, increase their thought leadership and learn. The economic crises has proved fertile ground for just that.
That collateral for you as an executive is the foundation for effective, efficient delivery of business objectives.
Consultants are by nature restless, enjoy a challenge and thrive in the most difficult of situations. Their sweet spot is to have the tools and collateral, the time to think and just the right environment of confusion (and possibly fear). They like to accomplish things that others are too slow, too scared or not qualified to tackle. When they see a clear path with all those parameters they get things done fast.
Every one of those parameters is now lined up. Consultants have had plenty of time to create, think and learn. Now they are hungry for the chance to apply. For you that means a quick start from the backward slide of the last year or so.
Before you begin dreaming of business objectives and end states finding clear, quick paths to success look closer at what the use of those resources means to your organization and your culture. Your employees are likely fearful. They now worry about their jobs and their roles (and don’t expect that to go away for a long time). An energetic consultant with little baggage and a clear focus on goals is a serious threat. The more the numbers tilt in the direction of external resources (some firms were close to 50% even before the economy tanked) the more threat there is to the culture of the organization itself. And while unfounded (IMHO) those employees may think that the externals could actually replace them.
Your warning is
that too much reliance on external resources can weaken the fabric of your organizational culture. To rely on those resources when your culture has already weathered a storm (without the camaraderie of conquering adversity) can potentially effect those initiatives that happen after the first wave of success.
Why not strive for speed and success while at the same time transitioning your employees from fear to action. Pick a consultant (or small firm- you will not get this from the big firms) who understands what needs to be mended, wants to transfer that built up collateral and knowledge and is looking for challenge rather than maximum possible revenue (hint that would be the big firm- in fact just about any with employees). You will pull your employees into the new reality, accomplish and prepare all at the same time.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, C level, CEO, change awareness, change management consultant, change management strategy, engagement, External Consultant, strategy, Value
Companies have hoarded cash. They are lean and trim. The foot is on the throttle; the hand at the gearshift. Fear is about to switch to anticipation. Once the accelerator is pushed and the up shifting begins there will be BIG change.
Are you an executive in the drivers seat?
That little space there between the twitching fingers and the gearshift is the most appropriate place to insert high level change management. That space, from the stirrings I have seen in the last couple of months, is now.
What do you need to consider and act on to jump start the change process?
Readiness
Not my favorite term as you know if you have read previous posts. This time it fits. Because this time you will want to gauge the overall feeling of your culture. Are they ready for tires burning? Or have they been so ground down and made to be scared from the last year or so that you have some executive communicating to do? You want to look at readiness in general not for any specific initiative. And by readiness I mean the capacity to strap in for the ride. If it is not there then some core parts of the change process need to be done well and communicated to the individual level.
Strategy
If it was strong and well communicated throughout the economic turmoil then Kudos. Odds are it was a an exercise in trimming, reducing, stopping and stalling. Not a good foundation for the change process. And not a foundation for trust with new strategy to move forward. Make sure the redo makes sense, communicate and re-communicate with individual stakeholders in mind. This is the spot to build trust, calm the culture and transition from fear to anticipation.
End States
Leverage your strategy into clear, attainable, but innovative end states. Don’t apologize for the trimming, but don’t ignore it either. If the reason you have the cash stockpiles to change is your cost cutting strategy then let the change come from that. And make sure your organization knows you are moving forward because of the previous strategy.
Development
Who did you lose? Who did you keep? How much time and money do you need to now invest to build back competency and capability? You can use the change from first gear on to help with the development (a core ingredient to our approach at Vision to Work- change and develop at the same time).
Resources
Consulting will grow next year. Transitioning from fear to anticipation and action will require intense energy and motivation to get work done. That will come much faster from hungry consultants. Just make sure as the leader with the wallet you pick firms that enjoy and feel ethically that they should be teaching and developing your people for the eventual exit of the consultant (hint small firms to independent- NOT big firms).
Those consulting firms, or individuals who build a team, should be assessing your competency and leadership gaps, temporarily filling them in and guiding you to replacement (or using their peer network to actually find them for you).
You can’t gun the engine just yet. You must turn fear into action. In this environment you have change within change- call it recovery to change.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, C level, CEO, change awareness, change management consultant, stakeholders, strategy, vision to work
Having worked under six methodologies not including my own approach I am beginning to wonder why the heavy emphasis on deliverables? Not solutions, results and goal attainment but paperwork (literally or electronic). Budgets typically fall well short of the needed expenditure for CM/external resources. To use those expensive, under-budgeted for resources for paperwork makes no sense.
My fly on the wall perspective of both those internal and other consulting firms trying to be noticed is this-
Deliverables are consulting firms justification. The more paperwork, the more report outs, presumably (in their minds), the better they look.
Deliverables are the internal path to covering tracks. The more you record, the easier it is to pass the buck later. The more you report out on the more it looks like you worked your tail off (in truth it was on the creation of the deliverable, but no one seems to bring that up). Internally deliverables are also a way to police and micro manage.
And so who are the deliverables for?
Sometimes they are used to report to executives- who I know for a fact prefer dialogue to PowerPoint. Sometimes they are a requirement of a methodology or process. Sometimes they are created to try to prove a point or sell a new idea. I am not sure this answers who they are for though… I tend to think the answer is the person who created them (which makes the expenditure of time even more senseless).
What Should deliverables be for?
As a map to the next steps. Methodologies heavy on paperwork usually have assessments and then recommendations in two separate documents. In my own approach I gather information, find areas unseen by the client (or difficult to see as an internal) and layer that over the path to the end state. Recommendations are ongoing. Assessments are a constant dialogue. The deliverable is a living, breathing, malleable guide to tasks, process and “be aware of’s”.
Just ask yourself this- Is your change process always ahead of your deliverables? Which is easier slowing the change or reducing deliverables? One of them has to give, because organizations do not have the money or the patience for both.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Garrett Gitchell
I googled change management this morning to see the latest hawked wares and approaches. Since I am a spatial learner and love pictures I chose “images of change” as my first stop.http://tinyurl.com/245t9s5.
Wow.
Could the approaches be more overwhelming? Change itself has a tendency to be the same. As a practitioner wouldn’t you want to make the process easier? Although if I am selling snake oil…
Here are some observations from my image journey-
- Change practitioners adjust their approach to their own perspective (strategic, OD focused, PMO based, Leadership oriented etc)
- Change apparently either revolves around a hub (yes I am guilty with my spider web article-http://issuu.com/garrettgitchell/docs/prosci2010paper), moves along a torturous curve or follows clearly from step to step on a timeline (oh and it could look like an iceberg which is really helpful for the whole fear of change thing)
- You need phases, must have phases
- They are all heavily influenced by historical gurus
- Change is funny (I admit I did like the pictures and cartoons)
After a couple hundred blog posts of my own (maybe I need “the book” to get there) I still can’t quite explain this, but they all feel like they are forcing change into a funnel that magically comes out the other end with a solution. I can picture what an engagement would look like about 3 months in having followed one of these pretty pictures (you can bet the practitioners are inextricably entwined with their own drawings). If I were to ask at that point, “what will this look or feel like when it is all over?”, odds are the answer would not be there (for the practitioner, the leader and especially for the stakeholder).
For that to happen, assumptions, perspective and history usually have to be unraveled, looked at and then rebundled into a change approach that works back from the goal rather than forward to …. can’t resist…. infinity and beyond.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, change awareness, change failure, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, Value, vision to work
This is an interesting relationship. Symbiotic, hopefully. Adversarial, sometimes. Good show, always.
When they are the same person
Usually that means layering CM into the role of the project manager. There is a conflict here. A project manager will by nature work to narrow focus to reduce risk. When focus expands it is to satisfy “the list”. They know that the broader the spread the more the risk because that brings in more People. The more time spent influencing people the less spent managing the timeline of to-do’s.
At times, less than our first combo, the CM is tasked with both roles. There is, perhaps, less of a conflict here. A change practitioner will by nature work to broaden perspective because they know the risk inherent with a narrow focus, especially when it comes to People. The more time spent influencing people the less time spent revisiting the to-do timeline.
My suggestion for both- pay more attention to the effect on people than the list itself. The list is dictated by participation. It is very difficult (hence CM as a career) to dictate participation.
When they are two people at the same horizontal
This is not always managed well in organizations. Because of the view that change is something layered over a project CM is usually added too late. CM comes first; PM comes second. If the operating horizontal is the highest the initiative needs to reach they could start close to the same time as long as the planning is CM to PM. Then the symbiosis begins. Now the PM can focus on strict management of costs, risks and tasks (and they could take or help with the role of measurement along the way). The CM can anticipate and address roadblocks in the rollout of the change (and shepard through a lot of those PM to do’s).
When they are two people at different horizontals
This is the potential adversarial combination. If one has better leverage and connection to leaders and that is not transferred to the other it becomes a battle between “this has to happen now” and “I can tell you why it will not”. When this combo is CM higher and PM lower it has a real chance of working. It is the change practitioner that needs ultimate (whatever that means for the particular initiative) exposure in order to get ahead of people risk. With that exposure and a jump start on the PM work the CM can make project management much easier for everyone involved. This can also be an excellent mentoring arrangement to help mold a version of paragraph one.
If the PM is high and the CM is thrown into the middle of the organization it is… like 90% of the engagements with CM involved. This is the status quo arrangement that makes change management an exercise in futility. It takes a knowledgeable, understanding, flexible PM to work in this arrangement. It takes a senior experienced connected to people CM to orchestrate the partnership. If there is any hint of control of the CM on the part of the PM then there will be an adversarial combination.
In general the change management piece must be guided with a broad perspective which then connects to specific moves forward on the timeline (including specific tasks). The project management piece operates best when it can dispatch talent to task and know, within reason, how long it will take to check off the to-do. If you can get that in the same person (and they will still have time left to sleep) great. Just remember-
CM early and broad.
Technorati Tags: change management, Garrett Gitchell, PMO, vision to work
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 )
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CCM, CEO, change awareness, change failure, change management, change management consultant, End State, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, Insights, resistance to change, vision to work
|
|
