|
|
There is a new breed of CM consultant out there.
Call them the Contrarians.
(there are so few of them I could make them t-shirts and not break the bank).
Maybe they got this way from seeing the crime of forced change.
Maybe it was the limitations of a project focus that made them think a different perspective might save the world (or at least the day).
Maybe they started a little before the template, do it in exactly in this order, cheese loving wave of death began.
Maybe they have that rare superhuman, or at least superhero (heroinne) combination of people and business skills (and perspective).
Maybe they have an intuitive camera in their heads (their superhero strength) that can take mental image pictures of possibility.
Whichever combination of these (or all of them, a mega superhero) got them here they have one thing in common: they see change big and broad and can translate to the here and now. (By contrast the others, not villains, just not superheroes, let alone contrarians, see things in terms of the here and now with the future state far off).
The superheroes weave process and competency into a pat,h then can accumulate expertise and be pulled toward end states.
The others pay close attention to task and phase. They are busy, but a little like the crime fighters I saw as a kid in New York all standing on Wall Street. I was about to say no crime there… bad metaphor I guess.
Without the big picture view and the down to earth understanding of people that these heroes have it is hard to catch all of the things that can get in the way of good and success which of course is what all superheroes and the people they help, want.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, C level, CEO, change awareness, change management, change management consultant, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
For change to work you have to know where you are going.
Not the path, not the process, not the timing- the place.
If you do not know what that place looks and feels like, and personalize that picture, how can you possibly figure out what needs to happen? Let alone who needs to be involved or which road to take.
Yet the change management conversation quickly moves to task, process and people (as in, “how do we get Joe on board” rather than who has the skill and competency to fill in this piece). I will stick my neck out and say that is really not a change management conversation, but project management.
Holistic dialogues like talking about and then describing end states seem to be very hard for most people (I spend a lot of time teaching this in my own practice) to have. Big picture (as big as the scenario, this end state back thing works for small stuff too) viewpoints are pushed aside, not taken seriously and overpowered by operational stuff and status quo thinking.
It is usually easy to point backwards to something the client did to illustrate how a little time defining the end of change would have made a BIG difference (in results and in spending).
I get it though. Pieces and parts make for easier explanations. Pieces and parts work to translate big stuff into real stuff (and small stuff). Our pieces then:
- Destination
- Place
- Journey
- Time
Destination
Vacations that have no purpose, just get in the car and go, are fun (until the first night you can’t get a room). Change that works that way is not fun (or cheap).
Just naming the destination does not count.
Talking about, explaining, imagining, envisioning, dreaming about the destination (the end state) can make it real. That vacation to “Italy”, fill-in-the-blank, was different than you imagined, or expected, it was still a great vacation though. If you had not planned for it and thought about how fun it would be would it have turned out as smooth and enjoyable?
And didn’t that place you were going to define the whole process? This is about… fill-in-the-blank destination. Maybe you learned a language (competency in org. talk). Maybe you bought some things you needed just for the trip (which can likely be reused). Maybe you needed help (even for the destination description) getting the whole vacation thing to work.
Odds are good you knew your destination and took the time to understand it and see it and feel it, pre-vacation.
Place
Did you take that a little further and imagine things that would happen while you were there?
Place (and spot for my change approach) are two of my favorite words. Place is the spot you are standing on (spot the relationship of yours and others places). You can pretend and imagine place before you get there.
Changes will happen along the way that define that place.
Once you know your destination you can begin to define place. You can start to make a high level list of the things that have to happen for that place in time to become.
Journey
A huge component of change has to do with the journey.
In the haste to get going, manage this whole project, the joy of the journey gets buried. In fact to use our vacation analogy it becomes uncomfortable, irritating and overwhelming.
If you know where you are going and have a sense of what that place and spot might be like you can put together some pieces of the journey. Think of it as gathering all of the parts to the building. You have started a high level plan, you have a sense of some of the things you might need. It is ok to gather them before you have the concrete project plan.
Know that as soon as you begin to gather, even plan to gather, the journey has begun.
It would not hurt to stop in the moment once in awhile to acknowledge journey.
Time
Because time just slips away.
And time is precious.
So don’t start manipulating it until you know what you are doing.
At this point in our narrative you have a destination set, you can stand in that time and appreciate what that destination is, you have a sense of the journey to get there, it is now OK to begin placing events on a timeline.
Please, please, please do not set the exact date you will get there (unless we really are just talking about vacations).
Chunk up the journey into pieces that can be labeled. Use your project management process if you want- those always have stage labels… plan, execute, implement etc. And/or try some new languaging for just this project, “across Global IT” is one I am using on my current engagement (signals this will be collaborative and circle the globe).
Then go ahead and get down and dirty with some real project management.
Check yourself on that journey. Sometimes the destination drifts away like an old Twilight Zone show where the hall has no end.
Destination, place and journey are most important for change. Task and chores just fill in the steps to get you there. The hands on work is the easy part…
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, C level, change awareness, Change Design, change excercise, change failure, change management, change management consultant, Change Strategy, corporate change management, End State, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
Change management practitioners (who have worked high in the organization as well as side by side with implementers), have a knack for seeing connections to the bigger picture. This is a powerful (and irritating) addition for organizations.
It is powerful because small things mean a lot to individuals. Connecting to something bigger gives each of those small things more significance. More significance in relation to individuals equals more participation.
It is irritating because to most, especially those implementers, there does not seem to be much connection between the little things and more important tasks to accomplish. CM practitioners must seem like mosquitoes in springtime Alaska- they just keep buzzing and it is hard to swat them away.
Something as innocuous as an executive communication within a project, we know as practitioners, can have big connection and important significance for change and the organization. Little trust and confidence threads run through all the organizations interactions, especially those of the leaders. Change feeds on trust (or maybe survives would be a better word). Anything that takes away that nourishment will effect change in a detrimental way.
The way things are done can be reinforcing for those who need to get things done fast. The “way things are done” can feel like “here we go again” to stakeholders and employees. Since those good practitioners do see a bigger picture they are magnets for feedback (even and especially the negative complaining kind, which are FULL of valuable tidbits). Having that feedback in their own database helps them see how badly something can go wrong on a broader scale. (and so they buzz like mosquitoes).
I bring this up here in a blog post because it seems no one is really responsible inside organizations for seeing these connections. Leaders should know better but cant be flies on the wall at the implementary/stakeholder level. Those at the level of task have no accountability for the bigger picture (other than the hierarchical connection to their leaders).
This buzzing about the little things and how they feed the big things, and the conversation about how the big things need the small things is important. Practitioners need to keep it up for the good of everyone. Too bad we can’t bite like mosquitoes. The need to itch would make people pay attention…
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, CCM, CEO, change management consultant, corporate change management, Executive, stakeholders
The joy of consulting when change management is really new- especially in an established firm…
There is no perfect “right” for a change management approach. There are some “not so rights” that make getting change to happen difficult. When CM is not present in an organization or is very new (with none of those “not so’s” inserted) this career is pure joy.
Tread lightly in these cases. Here are a few tips that should fall under “right”:
- Set up something that helps define end states.
- Create a place to go and a place to store.
- Template and “ brand” (lightly please).
- Increase Leadership presence.
- Completely wrap your arms around what exists structurally (and be ready to tweak that).
End states
Knowing where you are going, even better seeing and feeling what that might be like, from multiple perspectives, is crucial to change. The better your organization and its people get at defining and describing where you are going the smoother and faster change happens.
Use leadership development, templates with the right questions to ask, and (shameless plug) external consultants.
Set up ways to collaborate to have the dialogue needed to define end states. Add ways to include facts, numbers and the business side support for those end states.
Landing and Destination spot
Create a “place” where information can be exchanged and stored. Take that one step further and make the place collaborative. Tools like SharePoint can help. Adding portals, blogs and regular newsletter type communications adds to the mix.
Consistency
Integrate consistency into your approach.
Have regular communications that happen on a consistent basis. Use colors, shapes, styles to define a few types of communication (maybe your leaders get the blue header, projects green). Do the same within projects and keep that consistent from project to project. (Do feel free to improve as you go along, just make sure you communicate differences and don’t go so far that the original consistency gets confusing).
Consistency can be tough because you do not want to police and/or stifle interaction. The more formal the exchange the easier it is to “template” it. The more you want honest exchange the softer the edges of the consistency box.
Leadership presence
If setting up this change management entity, process, approach is a change initiative of its own move this paragraph up to the top. Leadership presence is crucial for effective change. Trust and energy equal participation. All three can equal end states with some good planning and lots of work through expertise.
Make sure you have places, events and regular activities where leaders can be seen, heard and, in a perfect world, disagreed with once in awhile.
If your leaders do not already accept accountability and responsibility (to their employees and stakeholders- to the board and shareholders always seems to be a given) then create places where they can illustrate their tie to change.
If they do not have those two trust building qualities give them places in your approach and structure to build connection. Maybe you need just as much movement from employees toward leaders as you are asking of your leaders toward stakeholders?
History and structure
While putting this all together keep a list of what has come before.
Culture, structure and history either hold change back or help it move forward. Sometimes you have to call any or all of them out as roadblocks and then build something new. Many times you can simply make just the right adjustments to hold on to what you have while growing into what you need (or want).
By comparison to the less pristine organizations pure client environments are a joy to work with. Having to work with change management false starts and undeveloped structure is often like doing two engagements at the same time. If you are lucky enough to be in one of those “pure” organizations (maybe you are a start up…) get a good start with defining end states, creating landing and exchange places, adding effective consistency, building leadership presence and honoring history and structure (just enough to move forward).
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, C level, change awareness, change communications, Change Design, change management, change management consultant, Change Strategy
Time to have some fun with Gail Severini’s Authenticity post over at the Change Whisperer.
Gail mentions WIFM and WIFO- “what’s in it for me” and “what’s in it for the organization”. The two may not always align. So just being an authentic leader in and of itself may not be enough. You have to be in the right place.
My comment was that you would also have to be in the right environment. As a senior leader you are surrounded by other senior leaders and many who want to be in the senior leader spot. Both can wreak havoc on individual authenticity.
What is an Authentic?
:reliable, trustworthy, genuine.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary
This is the definition for authentic. For this post we will use it for our label.
Where are the Authentics?
I mean this genuinely, but also literally. Are there Authentics?
They absolutely lie hidden in the organization about the senior manager level. At that point in their career, because all of their work is closely connected to individuals, they benefit from being authentic. They also have not been around long enough to be tainted by structure and status quo. (Although if they are too authentic, even at this point, they might get the boot from a boss less so).
The Authentics are also at the higher levels. Their tenure is often shorter than others (tempting to “blame” that on authenticity) but they carry (unless bouncing taints them) that genuine approach to their next role. Ironically they are probably hired because they display that characteristic in interviews.
How can we help them?
My corporate sermon would start with: “All that is positive, all that is genuine, those who display these characteristics, need our support and encouragement”. It is a shame that authenticity is so hard to hang on to in the corporate world.
Certainly externals can help them by paving the way to the good. That often means collaborating and making connections cross functionally to get agreement (maybe through pulling out authenticity in others- good works better with size and strength). Making positive, correct and good more powerful and enticing than the opposite builds authenticity.
Internally you can shine a light on actions of authenticity. Better to clear the path of positive than to spend time calling out and praising the authentic. Although there may be strategic times when this makes sense (especially from one authentic senior leader to another rising version).
How about nurturing your own authenticity? If you are a leader those who work with you will benefit. If you are just starting out consider yourself pure- reinforce your purity. If you are authentic everyone benefits. Seems like a good place to start.
Technorati Tags: CEO, Communications, Executive
Last year seemed to be the year of executive churn at least from my vantage point. Many of my senior leader contacts moved on or were moved on. In a few cases the churn within an organization was substantial (3 or more senior leaders gone in the same year).
This could be the economy, it could be a speeding up of shortened C level and VP tenure or it could just be the machinations of career building. Regardless of the reason there is an interesting dynamic that accompanies this pattern. The trusted adviser(s) are still around and/or still available.
Have trusted advisers become the Strategy Glue for these organizations?
A consultant who has worked with multiple executives successively has a unique perspective on the organization. They know what is possible, probable and likely. They usually have a strong sense of the direction the organization should go to be successful, at least from a people standpoint (if not business too).
Aside from possibly the CEO they can build up tenure with no threat. One clients end to a contract might be the open door for another. Two or three client companies with this relationship for the consultant and partnering can be a back and forth over a period of years- with new executives each time.
The culture and history of course do not turn that fast.
A trusted adviser will be well aware of this. They will probably be twice as effective with the unmoving nature of culture. They could very well have been there for the selection process for the replacement executive so have a head start on integration of a new face into a longer term plan.
I am throwing all this out as a stream of thought while thinking the use of a trusted adviser, especially for the CEO (who MAY stay longer than others), to glue together a longer term strategy is a wise move.
Strategy probably belongs internal. Strategic planning and suggestions may just make sense as an external element- especially in this senior executive churn environment.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, change awareness, change management strategy, Change Strategy, corporate change management, Executive, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, strategy
Sometimes change management is an operational, analytical, label-less effort.
Here is a short list of situations where change management now exists without project, program or initiative labels. Each can be a prerequisite for transformational change:
- Change Entity
- End User Support
- Introducing Change Management
- Non-program Focused Organizations
Change Entity
Situation:
Client brings in single external consultant to review organization, or function, for skill, competency, talent, understanding of change management and an evaluation of current project process. There is no label for this effort. The budget likely comes straight from the executives own flexible pool of money.
There are deliverables built in (the analysis and assessment), but it is mostly a “rover” search with lots of dialogue and interaction.
It is operational in that current process is reviewed. It is analytical with an external eye. It is label-less, except that the organization now has a high level consultant who is making connections horizontally, vertically and collaboratively that do not officially exist in the organization.
End User Support
Situation:
Users (this is a broad definition meaning anyone who is using something in the organizations structure- software, process, procedure, etc.) can’t find what they need. Maybe users do not know how to do things (which is very common now with the almost complete elimination of real training). One common version, in big older organizations, is that no one knows who does what and there really is no way to find out.
This one could be loaded with deliverables. I find in these scenarios it helps to create something to illustrate things I am explaining. For process it may be a description of a much needed role that does not exist. For software it may be a quick video to teach something not used that could be, or being used, but incorrectly (OneNote in Office is a good example). For procedure it might be a list of places where too many steps exist or where steps are not clear (or do not make sense).
This is at it core operational. It is analytical, but on the people side- finding the spots where small change could make user work life easier, preferably instantly, is the key to a successful effort. This version of label-less change is about how people do the tasks that feed (or will feed after the label-less behavior change) into labeled change.
Introducing Change Management
Situation:
Change management does not exist in the organization and the wise executive client brings in a single external consultant to build understanding and perspective. (shameless plug- of CM that has an end state focused positive approach).
This one may have no deliverables. Really the consultant is the deliverable. (Paying for knowledge and experience and the ability to build connections in the organization, how novel [I think that used to be called “consulting”]). OR, it could have a ton of deliverables. If a change entity is in the works for the future, the introduction can be a chance to get a jump start on templates (yes there will be SOME templates) and design elements.
CM introduction has operational components if the consultant is smart enough to know that ease of regular work equals willingness to participate. It is analytical behind the introduction. Every organization is different. Integrating change management the first time around requires finesse. It helps to bring in the analytical element to consider various measurement aspects within the organization. Fight me on this, but measurement is the enemy of CM. Don’t fight me too hard, I realize your enemy can often become your most trusted partner with a little respect thrown in.
A CM introduction works better when it is label-less. Don’t tell that to those “get-all-over-the-organization-with-our process (and templates)” consulting firms this. They know a big bright sign that says, “we (insert company name) are HERE” can bring in a whole lot of dependent revenue. (The dependency quickly has two players- client and previously inserted company).
Non-program Focused Organizations
Situation:
To me the strangest of the bunch. Many organizations- well established, more or less monopolies, with no incentive or need for real big change- operate in a non-program focused format. So the situation is that the client WANTS some labels. The client wants to be able to separate some things out, name them and illuminate the possibility for change small or big.
This is analytical. Numbers must come into the mix somehow. This type of organization relies on numbers for “proof” of everything. This is operational. You may be looking at suggesting something that is absolutely not done in the organization (hint: strategy first, the naming, followed by tactics the work rather than what exists- the other way around). This is a label-less change initiative to put some labels on things. Sounds like fun!
Thanks to more visibility for change management, in understanding and presence, a good chunk of work for senior external consultants is now label-less CM. From the creation of change entities to end user support and simple introduction of change management, especially for organizations that do not have a project focus, label-less change is becoming much more common.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, change awareness, Change Design, change excercise, change management, change management consultant, change management strategy, Executive, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
Typical scenario: Client has a host of structural things that are not working, historic pattern has been a series of fixes, projects and programs scaled up to executives. We could call it “Operational Organic Change Management”.
To get executives in this scenario to suddenly plan around strategy, long term, ahead of the fixes does not happen from within (except over long periods of time, which likely cycles through multiple leaders). Encouraging them to think bigger, broader and more collaboratively is a start for planting the seed of more horizontal operations. An external influence can help this. In fact a partnership is the best combination- the external signals possibility to stakeholders while the internal provides a trusted leader.
Using as a pilot a portal, a communication process or approach or some new visibility for executives can be the first seed for broader cultural changes. Within that broader context specific fixes can be addressed. If those fixes eliminate real pain points for end users momentum can build for more (fixes and change).
That is an example of PULL.
Pull is anything that helps to get participation from end users/stakeholders for something new.
Pull is also getting those same stakeholders to go somewhere new for information, say a portal.
Pull can be equated to the enormous energy it takes to move a ship the first inch. Once there is a little momentum not as much energy is needed. Same with change. In fact with change that momentum creates new energy.
Work towards some form of pull. It may not have to be big. It just has to be something that shows obvious difference from what currently exists, fixes pain, adds functionality or builds trust.
Technorati Tags: change excercise, Communications, corporate change management, engagement, Executive, External Consultant, organizational change, stakeholders
Change management can sound great. I can explain what it looks like.
In reality big broad, honestly transformational change is difficult if not impossible.
(I see none of these as reasons to give up the quest though).
Here is the short list:
- short term perspectives
- short term measurement
- leader tenure
- status quo
- vertical orientation
- Money, time, competency
Short term perspectives
Big, broad and long in time takes a hit when all the stakeholders, process and structure deal with short increments. The favorite seems to be by quarter. Imagine running your life by quarter and never thinking ahead. Look at it that way and you see how ridiculous it could become.
Well in organizations, at least here in the US, we are there.
It is so short term that most decisions are made in order to satisfy personal needs- the organization plays a distant second fiddle.
I have seen studies that show video games or multi tasking remap our brains if done repetitively over time. I’m pretty sure short term viewpoints have a similar correlation. Which of course means anyone who has morphed into a short term decision maker would have to be retrained (and practiced) to develop long term perspective.
Short term measurement
That would do no good if people continue to be measured for short term results.
It is like everyone in the organization is measured similar to a sales person.
Performance management and the systems that support it are well behind the curve here. It is comical (and sad) as an outsider to watch PM processes operate. (Every big change engagement I am on has PM tugs and pulls since initiatives are multi year). There have been times when the participants have to try to remember things that happened in the past (part of the reason there are “paper trails”). If the process measured long term it would be a continuum and the PM meetings would simply be conversations, preferably of the planning type (rather than evaluation).
The only time I have ever seen short term measurement (up to a year) be advantageous for major change is when sales gets a huge buy or contract and knows they will never meet their upcoming numbers. At that point (since no one is going to tweak the measurement system) a very important functional group of stakeholders is primed to participate.
Leader tenure
Performance is not the only short term thing. Presence, as in still working here, is too. I am a little shocked at the length of tenure for senior executives. Three to five years is pretty common. So the first year you are getting your bearings, the second you dig in, the third you adjust and the fourth you begin looking around for other options.
Exactly where is big change supposed to fit in that equation?
Stay tuned for this post: I got to thinking yesterday for some organizations the only consistency now at the higher levels are the external consultants. I could easily be connected to a client long enough and with multiple engagements hooked together to come up with and facilitate horizontal organizational strategy- long term. All this while the owners and leaders churn in and out of the organization.
Status quo
Is just a big giant boat that will not move.
You can’t just say, “let’s really take a whack at our status quo and stir things up a bit”. Status quo is both a result and a root cause. Status quo is supported by structure that can be continually tweaked to support status quo. To change status quo you have to remove, or at least weaken, anything that might support it. You have to do something to structure to change status quo. And you have to stay ahead of that because each tweak creates a new status quo that only has a certain amount of useful time.
Vertical orientation
Silos.
Are everywhere.
They are big, as in functions. They are small as in little internal power circles. They are geographic. They are even by expertise and competency- I have seen many change management silos built right into the organization (with, yes, the same supporting structure as everyone else).
Money, time, competency
The scapegoats. And reasons of their own.
Money is never enough. I don’t mean “everyone wanting more budget”. I mean reasonably budgeting, preferably over the whole organization so that initiatives have a chance. The sad comical version of bad budgeting is the 10% (pick your number) across the board reduction. This I have seen more times than I can count in the last three years. What you get is everything functioning 10% worse than it did before.
Time is looked at too lightly. Time, as in not giving enough, is something that effects people. People effected carries into the next project, program or initiative (good news- it works in both directions negative AND positive). I actually think there would be MORE sense of urgency if timelines were stretched. People would be itching to accomplish something.
Competency is eroding. The more there is a short term focus the more thoughtful planning, balancing, comparing, analyzing and discussing go out the window. Interacting and balancing people and business is an ongoing learning process. It is not really like “riding a bike… you never forget”. Think in the short term, get closer and closer to ego and farther and farther away from community and collaboration and you will lose competency (I wanted to make this a fun sentence and say “become incompetent”…).
Short term perspectives, measurement and leadership tenure along with status quo, vertical orientation, money, time and competency (or lack of) all make big transformational change almost impossible. It is possible to address these and take away almost. At that point you are on the path to successful BIG change.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, CEO, change awareness, change management, Change Strategy, corporate change management, corporate strategy, Executive, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, vision to work
Coffee with a friend yesterday revealed the difficulties of translating perspective (could be theory if more developed) to application.
“That sounds great, but what would it look like?”.
Sounds Great
Change is about a spot in the future- the end state(s).
It is also about skill and competency (or lack thereof).
There is a path to get there.
My own perspective, I think crucial for translating to action, is that change needs to be future oriented. More and more I am emphasizing “End State Change Management” while at the same time explaining Horizontal Change Management.
Sounds great:
Seeing the goal, working backwards from there to imagine the path, determining what is needed as a result to compare to todays resources and assets (people and physical), beginning the list of missing pieces and, then, starting the project management process.
Sounds great and there is a clear distinction between this perspective and other present-to-future-gap-filling versions.
“But I am a client”, friend says, or “I am recommending you”, “What does this LOOK like?”.
Looks Like
Specifically it looks like a heavy emphasis on work with the owner and leaders at the very beginning of the change.
It is crucial for them to be able to articulate different forms of the end state that apply to different stakeholders. The first description, and usually the most difficult, is their own version. This looks like single sessions with the owner with many questions from me and/or sessions with other leaders with the questions and the dialogue that follows.
The Deliverable: End state descriptions (written and, hopefully, audio and video versions).
It looks like doing an assessment of the organization and its current processes toward change and project management to see to what extent future orientation is being practiced. That is the positive spin way to say this. What really happens is an assessment of all the status quo pieces that will slow down or do slow down change of any kind. Calling out this mindset (which instantly begins to tweak it for some) is worth its weight in results.
The Deliverable: A list of all the things, from easy to address to difficult, that will effect this change process.
Because I am a visual/spatial person a broader (in reach, time and effort) picture of the change needs to be created. One of those “hard to explain, what does this look like” talents that a good change practitioner brings, is the ability to look at your initiative big, wide and horizontal with nothing in the way of a web of collaborative connections.
The Deliverable(s): A map of all of the areas this change will touch is one deliverable. Your own org. chart a second that either exists (visually not textual) or can be created. The third comes later- the REAL org. chart that illustrates power levers, influence and (hate to say this) resistance areas (OK, and people).
A note on this particular deliverable: The map often develops into a hyperlinked visual and textual journey for the change. We are all used to hyperlinked explorations. All those little bounces around to understand connections can be built into this map. Those links can be enhanced and built on as the change process proceeds. This can make the change real and a shared effort for stakeholders.
With this core package of written, preferably genuine, descriptions; early executive media in the form of audio and video; status quo perspective and structure illuminated; and a picture that can be used to strategize, plan and “see” the change it looks like a solid start to any initiative.
What follows is more of the same at different levels, an overlap of some of the typical deliverables used with other approaches (stakeholder assessment, “readiness” assessment, training plan, communication plan, leadership development and communications plan, etc.).
An end state focus for change sounds great. It looks like an early process with three distinct deliverables that put individuals and the organization in context with this change. Perspective must change before application can begin.
Take a peek tomorrow for my take on why this all looks good on paper but is exceedingly difficult (dare I say doomed in many ways) to make happen. Many factors are practically impossible to address and control. Change is a challenge though- I love that part!
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, C level, CEO, change awareness, Change Design, change management, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, Context, corporate change management, corporate strategy, End State, Executive, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, organizational change, Value, vision to work
|
|
