|
|
Changes in organizations are approached in two ways. One is to frost the change over existing operations as an add on. The other is to set the change off to the side and “manage it” as a new and separate thing. They both have their pros and cons.
Layered Change
Layering change over existing operations works well when process and structure need to be tweaked or overturned. Layering makes it easier to have transition periods, to train and adapt stakeholders in their true environments and to set up for sustainability and a foothold for the change.
Change that is layered can also be focused on specific areas or functions. That focus can then be repeated. So layering works well with piloting. Because layers by nature build to a whole, each successive wave can gain improvements from the previous attempts. The succession possibility also makes this a way to train internal leaders on the change process.
Layered change is fantastic for year to year smaller changes in operations itself. Every little thing in an organization is a change (if not the organization ceases to exist or ends up existing under another umbrella), but they do not all have to be labeled as initiatives, programs or even projects. Layering from year to year helps with a smooth organizational change process.
Peeled Change
Is change that is guided separate from day to day operations. This means resources tend to be heavily external. Which is smart since peeling necessarily means taking away. That taking away can be a positive for internal resources if it is meant to train and develop. Focusing on the process of change can be a powerful addition to a young leaders arsenal and by extension the organization. Peeled change has little that gets in it way, but it can get in the way, because any change will at some point need to become operational.
Internal resources are not typically employed full time to large change initiatives- even when they are peeled. This creates a push and pull for resource time usually won by operations over change. If the separation and reintegration of those resources is managed by the change process though this can be a great way to keep the change management crisp and efficient.
Too many peels on the ground gets a little slippery though…
As a senior leader it is important to look at your strategic initiatives, programs and projects with an eye toward their connection to day to day operations and culture. The tighter the hold, or put another way, the less transformational, the more layering makes sense. The questions to ask are-
How drastic is this change?
How much do we want the work we do around managing this change to integrate into our fabric?
At what point and in what way do we insert the change (knowing there will be disruption to operations)?
“What are you going to do with the leaders who will not change, that we have not done”, is a paraphrase of a comment that comes from almost all mid level early in the engagement conversations. Of course the reverse from senior leaders replaces leader with person.
Problems here; pay attention.
Change management is not a coercive process to convert individuals. The focus does not need to be on resistance. To direct energy to those who someone assumes will dig in is insulting to that person and should be embarrassing to the person who asked. When someone displays a resistive behavior there is a reason. If you expect to get any change to happen you must plan on addressing those reasons, which, by the way, is the answer to the question, because reasons are never really addressed-it is too painful.
Addressing those reasons open up a spiders web of connections to structure, process, performance measures and internal politics. It is amazing how quickly CM becomes transformational. Or, as is typically the case, more coercive.
My response to the question/comment is something to the effect of “what is your access to senior leadership”. It usually appears tenuous at best. My version of access is influence; theirs if often more about emails answered. If you do not have a collaborative link to leadership then not only will the empathetic approach not work, but neither will the coercive.
As an external the link to the leadership is usually the first move to address their concerns. If they are talking about the same people/person then I see an invitation for a three way collaboration rather than an unscalable wall.
 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.
The number one skill for change management is the ability to truly see things from the perspective of the stakeholder. For a practitioner that means everyone- first day employee to CEO. For an internal change leader that means the same including looking at themselves in a different light (especially the CEO).
What is the stakeholder’s perspective?
That the change is far away, both in time and connection.
That it does not really make sense.
That even if it did the leaders do not really know what they are doing.
That even if they knew what they were doing they would not be able to explain and legitimize the change.
Or,
That this really makes sense, but odds are “they” will blow it
That this really makes sense, but the execution will fail (see last comment).
That this really makes sense, but there is no way they will create the space or have the capacity or capability to make it happen.
That this really makes sense, but they will rush it and cause it to fall apart.
That this really makes sense, but is just too big (or too bold, or too innovative or too different from our culture).
Or,
I could care less it it makes sense or not, I am too busy.
I could care less if it makes sense or not, I hate change.
…I like things the way they are.
…I need to be acknowledged personally before I participate in anything.
The lists go on (and on and on).
What is really happening here though? There is a lot of change going on- always. Since corralling that process 15 years or so ago under the title, “Change Management”, stakeholders have become aware. Thanks to a lot of boxes, steps, circles and comparisons to dying that awareness typically borders on confusion. They have also developed, thanks to ease of information, a keener sense of corporate strategy, the business environment and the success/failure ratio.
It turns out to be able to “see things from the stakeholders perspective” you have to
know what you are doing
do something that truly makes sense
have and display humility
have and use empathy
respect the knowledge and capability of stakeholders (and be able to leverage and reward)
have a process that isn’t just about filling in a timeline
get the first try, or at a least a try, right, to gain traction
and then do it again.
I will leave it up to you to decide who the orangutan is…(leader, project manager, change practitioner, stakeholder etc).
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.
High level change management has two or three spots in the timeline/process where I always feel it is essential to call a conference room late-morning-into-lunch meeting to wrap our arms around the big picture. I do not take forcing the invite lightly. One of the reasons I can be bold enough to take a chunk of first or second horizontal executive time is that an interesting thing always happens…something new, something potentially “viral” (in a good way), something specific to the client organization appears. It appears in the form of a new word (languaging at its core) a diagram, chart or picture.
One of those meetings (4 hours long) at a Fortune 50 firm created all of the above- a chart, a diagram and a picture. It was a picture that bore a striking resemblance to a camel. “It looks like we drew a camel”, I said on our sandwich break… that connection, that potential analogy, that unique to that organization picture, was all it took to begin creating a model. You might call that the second step of languaging.
The third step, now I hear a year later, after an all hands presentation by the client, was a wildfire spread of the analogy to different parts of the company around the world. Which has since morphed into functional and regional interpretations of the camel analogy, chart, picture and model.
It is nice that a camel can go a long time without water, can stand extremes of heat and has a face that takes a little time getting used to. All great languaging leverage points. Those up and down humps are also helpful to illustrate passage of time, levels of effort and participation. Carry that a little farther and you could say certain parts of the camel are better at carrying a heavy load (and certain camels are stronger).
This type of analogy languaging has happened a couple of time with clients… Maybe we should count them as deliverables…
Contracting between the actual owner of the change and the external CM practitioner is a crucial piece of the foundation for success. That contract- both the formal written version and the informal initial interaction- lays out expectations, introduces the client to a new and better understanding of the change process and glues the owner to the practitioner in a people and business relationship.
The insertion of anything in the middle of this business and person to person relationship is always detrimental.
Some reasons-
Third parties want to “own” the relationship- their definition of ownership is revenue based. Their way to protect that is to always insert themselves between the consultant and the client. And that helps Who?
Third parties skim the budget dollars. Direct contracts are at or less than those with a third party. Experienced consultants know that. So you can either save (by splitting the difference) or you can feel good about compensating the talent that is tied to your end states rather than burning dollars on overhead.
By using a third party you turn consulting into a commodity. Commodities have a direct tie to pricing. So the consultant gets a direct offer from another client at 50% and you assume they will stay? You, as a client, chose to use a third party so you have broken the ethical connection. As you can imagine consultants feel very little tie to the third party firms…
Third parties (no matter what they say) do not “know” your business. I have interacted with recruiters, staffing firms that think they are somehow consulting, consulting firms that somehow became staffing firms (unbeknown to them), internal contracted recruiters and internal recruiters. Except for the last one (and maybe the penultimate) they “knew” what they needed, but did not understand the whole picture (as in you within this initiative and the consultant and what they do and provide) . If I were a client paying upwards of 50% for this work I would have huge expectations for the “relationship”.
They do not find your talent faster. If a consultant has a LinkedIn profile you can find them with a phone call. And you get the added plus of relationship building right from the start.
They certainly do not find the best. Third party work for the best consultants is always fill-in. Because of the compensation difference between third party and direct they will be focusing how to fill in the missing revenue.
This is an important post because there is a trend to using more and more procurement type situations for true consulting. I have had to go through the dance (and waste a lot of precious change management time) a couple of times for high level roles because the client organization insisted on it. Judging by my own experience this is an area where there should be some loud shouting from clients and consultants.
The contracting relationship, the core of the process, is being sanded down and it is having an effect on implementation.
There are times that are pivotal opportunities for change.
Leaders must be just as aware of opportunities for change as they are for the need to change.
Let’s set aside the need to change, the desire to change and the management of change and look at opportunity.
First the obvious:
- a great idea that takes off (usually in a garage environment)
- growth- of revenue, size and number of employees
- a merger
- a very cool product, service or technology
- a new, respected leader
The not so obvious:
- crises
- employee resistance
- layoffs
- bringing on a high level external consultant
- retirement of a senior leader
- a corporate move
- a bad economy
And the questionable:
- new software enterprise wide
- new processed based solely on that software
- change based solely on a model (or worse a book)
- organic movements within functions
- a new, not so respected leader
As a leader pay attention to the opportunities around you to encourage, define and refine change innovation and process. If a light is shining on a spot or a place in your organization whether that light is glaring or pleasing take advantage of the illumination.
If there is “resistance” that is an opportunity to look at root causes. If there is a leadership move that is an opportunity to educate, make aware, question, strategize and dialogue. If the economy is tough use the fight together mentality to reinforce strength. If you have layoffs use it as a starting point and a chance for transparency and connection to work effort. If you have been smart enough to bring in an external consultant to shine a light on change itself leverage that visibility to make horizontal and circular communication and action loops.
Every change big or small is guided by or has a built in opportunity.
Change tends to draw people into creating fortifications- walls, forts, moats and fences. Are they for keeping things out or protection? Do they create hilltop fortresses of safety or islands of isolation? Of course the answers depend on which side of the fortress you are on, inside or outside. On whether you stand to gain or lose by being on either side.
Change management practitioners must be adept at gaining entrance to the fortifications, introducing something of value and leveraging that to agreed upon relaxation of the barrier- maybe a time when the gate is open, maybe an elimination of the guard on the tower and in a perfect world open doors and a symbol left to illustrate possibility.
I get the wall thing.
But from my external perspective, especially when I have gained access in both directions, that wall is a daunting thing. Look at this post picture. Look at your organization. Are your walls this intimidating? As a leader with, I hope, the ability to have this view, think of the resources needed just to manage the fortification.
Or better, think of the resources you would have if you could prevent the building of the fortification in the first place.
This gets to the core of what I see as the problem with change management and organizational operation and strategy- wrong perspectives, wrong approaches. In our analogy what typically happens is that the walls get stormed (the core of the resistance perspective) or they get strategically breached. The first wears everyone out (by endlessly addressing symptoms) and the second creates an insidious kind of fear (spies are everywhere).
What to do then if you are a leader faced with existing or about to be built fortifications?
Well you might want to create an opening to your own fort as a start…
- Find out why there seems to be a need for protection and separation and address that need.
- Use an external resource who can move freely through the gates, in both directions.
- Use a sentry who is responsible to both tribes (potentially fraught with problems, but also a good succession builder).
- Evaluate resource needs and efficiency and balance the two (you will find a lot of the fear under the heading, “resource”).
- Be careful of creating the fortifications before they think about it- think committees, “hub and spoke”, functions etc.
Know always that fortifications are obstacles and barriers not protection and security.
Be conscious that fortifications are effective (in a bad way) barriers to the growth and development of people.
Get the gates to open. The walls and the forts can still be there to contain and corral energy and resources.
|
|
