|
|
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.
Things begin to pick up for business (less fear, willingness to spend hoarded cash, new competition appearing from garages- not sure which is the cause, but things are picking up in the change arena) and the revisiting begins. Change anew. Except some of it is the programs that were cancelled a year or more ago. How is restarted change different?
History Doubled
The ability to move change forward is always effected by previous attempts (bad or good). To start something that did not finish on the first attempt is potentially tempting fate. If, in our current case, the economy can be blamed for the earlier stop, starting again just slots right into the business environment.
Care must be taken with communication for a restart because, excuses aside, a mistake was made. Sure, as a leader you do not think so – it was all part of the plan. The problem is to stakeholders it must not have been a good plan. Now the Pandora’s box of trust, faith in leaders (which is a specific kind of trust), I told you so’s and the appearance of mishaps is opened.
Address the double history issue with crystal clear as transparent as possible communications. You might want to recheck and possibly rethink the new plan- the last thing you want is two historical mishaps.
Second Chances
Everybody believes in second chances. You have one if you are restarting change. Some of your work may already be completed. Redo work can be done better. Mistakes can be corrected. And acknowledged. Which leads me to the “be careful”.
By necessity taking this second chance is assuming empathy. There is a difference between restarted change and any other- the empathy has to flow from the stakeholders to the leaders. Empathy should (I always hesitate to use this word, but it fits now) go from leaders to stakeholders, that is a given. To go both ways sets up an interesting dynamic. Maybe I should have said an effective dynamic because the core of relationships connected to accomplishments is shared empathy. Give it a double dose on your second chance restarts.
Rebuilding is impressive
Taking what you have, envisioning something different and better and then layering in additions is smart change. As with any remodel matching the old lines to the new can be difficult. Because that is an obvious component of rebuilding/remodeling everyone is impressed when the result is seamless. With your restart this is an opening for a view of the end state that includes overcoming and tackling obstacles.
For that to make sense as an explanation there must be honesty, transparency and camaraderie around stops and starts and the end states they can create.
With that you can restart and rebuild at the same time.
Change can be the overall time line of moving from one thing to another, or old to new. It can be the moment the switch happened- you actually move into that new home. It can be the process itself of transforming and changing behavior. It can mean movement, perspective, action, technology and/or behavior.
Transition might well be the same if semantics are not your game.
As an English undergrad words and languaging are an environment all their own for me.
So I like to think of transition as that sweet period- sometimes short sometimes a longer transformation- from the end of the old to the beginning of the new. Perhaps walking through the door of that new home…
With change management and the process of guiding change that sweet spot is something to capture as difficult, discomforting, then interesting, then satisfying and if more of those transitions may be in the future, contemplative and measured.
 
and people, which we sometimes forget.
They are often left to make decisions on their own. When those decisions turn out to have positive results they often must jump in celebration alone. Depending on where they currently sit in the organization (and at times where their next seat seems to be) they may just have to guide someone else’s decisions. I can give you some first hand feedback from my service in those roles.
One of my cringe points is the way in which change models and approaches deal with leadership. Just like the change processes those models lead into some of the most important first steps are passed by and left out. I insist with my executive clients in a process that builds end state descriptions for all. Because the leaders will have the responsibility of delivering, deciding and explaining they must understand how their work fits in to the big picture, just like a first day employee.
They become champions of the connection of work and individuals to strategy and a bigger picture not cheerleaders for the new change/thing. Because they are the champions of that connection I would say it is their responsibility to make sure the change makes sense. It is their responsibility to make sure the train does not start until they can articulate the connection. Sorry senior leader client person that is not the role of the CM practitioner. Delivering that articulation and making sure it is heard and understood is. It is also not the role of your direct report (see previous sentence).
We can go on and on about all the things someone should do as a leader, but without the correct assumptions and perspective those fantastic leadership traits fall on dead ears and worse dead hands and change stalls or fails.
So if you are a CM practitioner start to acknowledge executives as stakeholders. If you are inserted into a change process that does not do that stand in front of the train. As a senior leader I hereby give you permission to ponder, clarify and get comfortable with your role as a stakeholder first and leader next.
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.
Good consultants (by good I mean get results and influence in a positive way) can gauge the level of electricity, power and energy needed for any given place and time. The really good ones can intuitively place those places in time along an actual timeline.
I find myself spending a lot of thought time analyzing the differences between external and internal both from a consulting perspective and individual choice. There is a smoothness to internal employees. If you were to tie that to the dimmer analogy they are like the switches that remember the last setting you had and go there first. Once the setting is there a concerted effort must be made to change it, for the next time and maybe permanently.
Contrast that to consultants who can kick the dimmer all the way up with a burst of energy at any given time. Maybe this is a little more like the voice activated switch. “Lights full level” and there is light- lots of it.
So the internal runs into problems with the amount of energy available for any given thing. (I can’t resist this… and the guru insists creating urgency will deal with that…electricity delivered at high levels comes with a cost). Amping the energy, pushing up that dimmer switch when it already had a setting has repercussions. Hence the need for the internal to be so smooth.
The external meanwhile must overcome the many times in their career when they chose the wrong dimmer level- sometimes too intense sometimes to calming. While the external can deliver the power instantly there is always a chance of overload.
The consultant who learns to understand the effects of the different levels of input, intensity and energy soon gets good at doing the same for clients and stakeholders matched to their culture and environment. And this strikes me as one of the big reasons clients bring in consultants (and I do mean consultants here not contractors). Consultants, who are good, have the ability to orchestrate the movement of that slider- cranked up when appropriate, subtly lowered at other times.
If you turned the switch on its side it could be labeled context on the left and end state on the right. Lowering the lights grounds you in the moment, brightening the room lets you see ahead…
… and warning sign number one.
Because, for me, it is, “what do I need to know?”.
Doing before knowing is the mark of an inexperienced consultant (or the forte of a contractor). This question from a client is an indicator that some knowledge exchange between the two of us may just be the answer.
So what will I need to know?
The most important need to know is the description of the end state (not the current state, not the future state and not the black hole gap in between). There is a whole lot of why built in. This is not the why you are thinking of. It is not the “why” business case for the change (that will help in the overall description). It is not the “why we need this now” version. It is not the why we need this at this point. It is certainly not a search for justification. And it is not a question that gets a quick answer of because.
It is the why someone would be willing to participate and contribute to the effort. It is the why someone would want to be involved. It is the why the organization needs this (maybe a humanized and respectful business case). It is the why the future will be better when the end state is reached- yes a journey, yes difficult maybe, yes all of those things inherent in change- pretty and not so.
If I have marketed well in my own work , the owner of the change, the keeper of the cash, the leader the light shines on (the glaring one, not necessarily the one for the award ceremony) will be the person to open the gate for the path to the information.
The need to know will-
- Reveal the org. chart formal or hidden
- Illuminate structural flaws in the organization
- Illuminate cultural flaws in the organization
- Alert the hamsters on the wheels (which stop and look, which keep mindlessly running on the wheel?)
- Provide a broad stroke of the history of change in the organization
- Clue me in to the connection between leadership, stakeholders, vision and satisfied end states
- Provide clarity on the ability to take, give and assume responsibility and accountability in the organization
- The horizontal, vertical, diagonal and circular connections (that’s the hidden org. chart) present or not
Ok I concede this will create a list…
- A packed schedule of short interviews with a strategic mix of stakeholders.
- Somewhere in the mix of number one- a visual spider web chart of connections current, and connections needed, to first create and then get to, the end state.
- A list of the communication vehicles current (and connected to the change) and missing.
- My own secret list of movers, shakers, gatekeepers and agnostics (in general, not necessarily related to this change).
As with most clients maybe not what you were expecting?
Quick wins is another term that keeps spinning around.
For change management a quick win would establish trust and confidence between those leading the change and those who will be changed. That is the people side.
On the business side the quick win would fill in an objective that is an important piece of the overall change process. It would provide a pat on the back for all that is connected to the end state and the change in general.
Anything that clarifies the process, further describes the end state and or creates new positive energy and collaboration can be considered a quick win.
What no contrarian?
As with many things that have to do with people doing “business” throwing a label on things can often be detrimental. Quick wins can create a sour taste because the definition of win can be different for each stakeholder (see “pat on the back” above- people love to pat their own backs…). Quick wins with a sour taste in relation to change management are often a pat on the back for how well the change team did something. Nice for camaraderie, but not necessarily a tie to the whole and the end state.
Quick wins can be a little like potato chips. Think one will satisfy you? Soon the whole bag is gone and you are too sluggish to accomplish anything. For CM that looks like a focus on quick highs and short term perspective. This is not a short term process. If you can get your quick wins to slot into the longer process and be smart about how you leverage the actual term (keeping in mind historical change approaches that view the term from a shallow perspective and the tweaked history of the term in general) they can be an option in building the change process.
The practice of Change Management (this is the “what I have seen” view) is missing a clear perspective of root causes. Admittedly finding the core of organizational difficulties, not just the work of CM practitioners but also day to day operations, is not easy, takes time and requires insight and empathy- a tall order. An order that should be filled though, because symptom chasing solves little, lays a bad path for the next go around and diminishes the ability of CM overall.
Here is an example-
A method focuses on resistance of stakeholders. It lays out a series of communications, surveys, assessments (readiness which strikes me as the silliest of terms if you are automatically expecting resistance) and pretty pictures to represent the data. The data is “interpreted” and then the practitioners follow their pattern of educating on “the change process”, “gaps” (CM methods love to include gaps), transitions (ditto for this) and the five stages (or 8 steps or 10 boxes) that stakeholders must and will adhere to/pass through to accomplish the change. Everything that is gathered and collected illustrates symptoms, results of the change difficulty.
To get anywhere and to truly be successful at the end state causes need to be addressed.
Short of me (and it is truly an uphill battle) I have never seen a practitioner who takes that information gathered (because despite its poor perspective and damaging assumptions does gather some good data- I love data as much as the next practitioner) and uses it to address the root causes that have created the symptoms that produce the “resistance” that live in the house that Jack built…(I couldn’t resist).
Very often (here’s where I would like to have some good data) strategy-poor or lack thereof-is a root cause. Equally powerful is a performance system that runs counter to the objectives of the change. Culture that has not been molded to be innovative or at least receptive to enhancement can be another stifling root cause.
Therefore the first step of any major horizontal, “transformational” (if you like that synonym) change is to look with a magnifying glass (at the first horizontal I might add- might as well start the real change from the get go) at strategy, the performance reward equation and the good and not so of the organizations culture. That view through the looking glass will illuminate symptoms before they even appear sans expensive, time consuming and often detrimental data gathering.
A fictitious situation-
A big company buys a smaller company.
Big company lets small company retain name and separateness (in location and operation).
Later, much later, big company decides it is time for, now viewed as little company, to assimilate (and that is a nice way of saying it).
Big company has done lots of functional one off initiatives, but never tied them together, or illuminated one individual one.
So transformational change hat on- this is an excellent opportunity to call out the use of change management, use that leverage to model horizontal work for the organization as a whole and throw in development, mentoring and guiding of potential change leaders at multiple levels.
Just knowing change is being guided and that a framework will be created to do it again draws participants in. Having an external resource as a mediative influence is powerful (I should capitalize that). If the change this horizontal, whole system leverage is tied to is a difficult one (in our case assimilation- all would say that is difficult from both companies) then the illumination first on CM distracts focus to a shared purpose. The difficult initiative can then be languaged as the place to shine the light. It becomes more about exploring change together than tackling THE change.
It is not going to trick anyone true. This is the type of thing though that can be called out for what it is- a way to understand the process of change and therefore make it a little easier to deal with the actual change. And move forward with a better understanding than would have been present with the one off approach.
|
|
