|
|
I predict, thanks to reduction of employees, belt tightening and the effects of the economy a new obstacle for change- Apathy.
We are creeping up on an interesting flux period for organizations. Those who remain have lived in fear of losing their positions, have seen their work loads increase geometrically and are now years into seeing career paths disappear in front of their eyes. If they were “lucky” enough to remain they may also harbor guilt over “surviving”.
Those who were laid off, furloughed, trimmed, hacked (pick your synonym) are carrying bitterness over plans delayed (or destroyed). They have also had time to look at their situations and perhaps question the value of the “security” (I always say false- this environment supports my point) of full time employment.
Sometime soon the economy will pick up (and there are signs now).
We will have a mix of worn out and therefore apathetic current and incoming employees. Because many of the potential incoming individuals may well have gone their own way the pool might just be diminished. Which opens a window for those who stayed. Quitting is an instant fix for apathy. Finding a better position is a solution to that apathy. Demanding more to compensate for lack of security another.
Take heart though leaders of change. The step after this flux is a healthy energy partly from relief and partly to ensure individual survival the next time around.
Assumptions, the status quo, the influence of previous authors/gurus can tarnish the change process. There is often a lot of wasted effort, energy, time and money spent on acknowledgment/honoring before proceeding. Organic change methods owned by individuals based on “best practices” also fall into this category.
I found myself thinking today-
What if I had not read all those books up to during and after my Masters acquisition? What if CM was brought in just before any of these things took hold in the organization? What if as a practitioner I could just be truly naive and do what makes sense? What would that look like?
Mind cleared, childhood naivety (with adult reasoning) switched on, adult fear and justifications turned off… Let’s try this. My kids loved numbered lists, now is my chance.
- There has to be an end state description. Why will have to be answered, so anything that is necessary to do that, will fall under number one (I am guessing these will look like phases, but let’s let it play out).
- Because time, place, context along with relationship to others and their work is important, an initial message that includes the results of #1 will need to go out. That message will have an explanation of how the words, pictures, timelines and interaction of the change group will facilitate participation and understanding. It will also illustrate avenues for feedback loops.
- The meat of the implementation will have leadership guidance, ongoing connection to stakeholders, mentoring of project managers and any needed skills training.
- Adoption of whatever the change is which could include any and all of- technology, behavior, business process, structure, culture and more- is a transition process. So that when the official day of Adoption- let’s say the no turning back spot- comes, most will feel it has already happened.
- The initiative will feed into the next end state description.
Stripped of flavor of the day and marketing fluff (I even left out any mention of horizontal connections, maybe my own version) my 5 steps are a process of making sense of the change, agreeing on the relationship of work to effort and how that will be communicated, getting everyone up to speed on change as well as this change, letting the new blend with then replace the old and worrying more about how well this feeds the next change then the sticking power of the current one.
You can see that I am still basing my steps on assumptions- change happens all the time and people are becoming used to it, you really can make sense of business and people connected, a methodical interactive and collaborative process works (no urgency, no resistance fighting and so no condescending approach) and that CM will begin at the beginning go to the end and be around for the next beginning. One last assumption- that the practitioners will be quick in reacting, adjusting and, in the end, have read all those books and seen the results of putting stock in any one thing.
Because change management has changed. Where it has not, it needs to.
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.
In business/life people have to work together to figure out, to make a plan, to accomplish tasks to get to results. I start with that assumption and follow with the assumption that every organization has a process and a structure to get to the results sentence period.
Is this naive? As in having or expressing innocence and credulity.
It turns out the process and the structure are always there. The effectiveness and application of both is the issue. Enter Operational Change Management. Everyone who has anything to do with CM will agree that at its core it is about illustrating a goal, having energy behind the goal, getting participation, following the change path and reaching an end state. Well look at that. Those steps match perfectly with the core operational steps. And I might add look like the hundreds of models I have seen out there.
If it is this simple why is it that it never (yes I chose that word on purpose) happens?
Each of the steps in my first paragraph have major stumbling blocks thanks to people and money. CM done well, at higher levels connects the two. CM that is not done well seems to only address the people (and process). I have yet to see an organization (and few practitioners with the understanding and visibility needed) that can weave this connection.
Maybe it is just too big a task? Maybe it is because organizations do not have anyone, or any entity, responsible for the gluing? Maybe it is because the attempt is either first made internally without external help or done solely on a model from an external influence? Am I naive in thinking it is entirely possible to weave this people, process, money and method web?
I am trying to think of the title for this operational change management person…
VP of the Big Picture?
SVP of PM (people and money)?
Den mother (father)?
Ah, you say, what about VP or Organizational Effectiveness, VP of People, COO? First one is process, second is people, third one is close. CEO… maybe (in a naive perfect world).
I am not going to work toward an answer here. A solution though is running around in my head since we have laid out the root causes… I can just picture being able to pour something out of a can and have it spread over and through the organization. The something would carry languaging, process, structure, collaboration, method and B-12 to all the right places.
This is a touchy area I realize. Let’s take a stand-outside big picture look.
+ :
- Energy
- Teamwork
- In some ways more efficient
- Can be powerful for a one shot change
- :
- Threatens leadership (I didn’t say control, that is a different discussion)
- Methodology is organic
- Creates infighting and mini silos (see previous bullet)
- Is a great example of how most change in organizations starts in the middle (of the process and the organization) with no beginning
- It rarely connects to long term strategy
Grass roots organic change can be a great thing for accomplishing a short list of objectives or a small change that has real time constraints. The energy and the shared commitment makes for teamwork which gets work done fast (this is the core scenario for efficient business change). The excitement and commitment pull more people in which can (I emphasize can because there are some negatives here too) increase collaboration horizontally. If it works it can be a great model for the middle, of the change process.
Which is my transition to the potential negatives.
There is a very real threat to the way those responsible and accountable direct work (leadership in general and potentially a threat to a single individual high up). The way the original group goes about the change process will typically do one of two things- either grab a single approach from something/someone well marketed, say a book or grab everything from everywhere and create, well, a “grass roots” methodology. If function 2 happens to be in the same situation with a different change of their own we suddenly have methodology ownership. Grass roots change (and worse change design) is reactionary.
Explaining to do I realize.
From my external viewpoint dropped into the organization at a higher level this is what I see (typically)-
The grass roots energy starts as a reaction to the fact that leadership does not have a handle on change. The organization does not have a guiding entity, group of resources and approach (I like that word better than methodology it seems more human, realistic and practical) to change that ties to strategy, energy and work. That is a vacuum combination for an attitude of doing it yourself.
Grass roots organizational energy, as I see, is typically an illustration of strategy poorly communicated or strategy non-existent (sorry harsh, how about strategy weak). This is in terms of goals to work and demands (still work) to workload. It is amazing how many times the discussions around the grass roots efforts have to do with building a strategy. Makes me wonder who will be, or is, in “charge”…
Change Management has picked up a buzz in the last couple of years. Everyone who is trying to climb internally wants to be the keeper of the design. In one organization I worked with they had no less than six separate “design of change” grass roots groups going (with three big firms and a host of independents suffering a Pavlovian reaction like dogs at a cafe). A little like many businesses competing in a new space- what follows is merger mania with the loudest (not necessarily the best) winning the race.
Tying it all back together to something that works for the organization as a whole- a horizontal approach- is a change initiative in itself (surprisingly or maybe not so, typically started at a grass roots level).
What can you learn as a leader (or a grass roots barnburner if you strayed here) from this fly on the wall post?
Nurture anything that is grass roots. In the process be realistic about why it is happening in the first place. Do not be afraid of a high level group, entity and approach that can manage the connection between you (and your high level leader peers) your stakeholders and strategy fulfilled.
To get a better understanding of change that runs horizontal think of a spider web.
At the core of the web is the Corporate Strategy. For this to work we must assume (and a big assumption it is) that the strategy makes sense and can be described, communicated and measured. Radiating out- each with a bigger spread, more influence and more scope, from the core, are projects, programs, initiatives and transformation. The gossamer threads of connection between the four are the functional units of the organization. Spun off from the edge of the web are the external entities (partners, suppliers, customers, the business community etc).
Everything is connected. The sensitive nature of the web means that all movement will be felt, both good and not so.
A change catalyst group made up of internal and external resources rests near the center, near the strategy, near the leaders who control spending, end state visioning and initial leadership. If you were to insist on laying this web over your org. chart the first circle off the hub of the web would be the first horizontal; the precise center, the CEO and the board.
Some observations-
An experienced and intuitive Change practitioner is used to spinning informal versions of this web- they will sense and know the effect of every movement.
Internal consultants rarely are empowered to do so, but are exceptional at managing the web after it is built.
I have not played with this much, but there is no reason this web cannot have a smaller version within functions (or geography or units…?).
While the CCG (or your own crafty acronym) sits near strategy it runs out along all of the threads and circles the web in each of the four change areas, radiating out to make external connections and working with leaders to build and repair connections (see the upper left corner of our diagram).
With dots throughout the web this could actually be THE org. chart.
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.
Plan ahead for levels of growth by structuring your organization with a change component.
Each layer of growth in a firm typically adds a layer of titles; each new title has the potential to create a new silo. Eventually it becomes difficult to move the organization fast enough to grow again.
If from the first stage of growth someone is responsible for horizontal connections (collaboration, communication, training across functions, diagonal mentoring etc) your culture will build around working together on the companies business objectives.
That person, CEO, founder, COO, VP of Change or external change consultant (notice no HR and no Director title) must be good at describing and planning for end states for initiatives, projects and change. They must understand that those end state descriptions are crucial to tying the work of individuals to business objectives (to them the "bigger picture").
The bigger picture must have a path to success. So that person, HR or a partnership of both has to have their finger(s) on needed competencies to fill in both the end states and the paths to get there.
Then you (assuming there is capital to fill in competencies) will have what I consider the two crucial pieces for growth- the connection of work to a bigger picture and the path to deliver the bigger picture through individual work and motivation.
Trends I am seeing that will influence change management’s future-
- Stakeholders get it- often more so than their leaders
- Executives are trying to establish control over the various organic change movements within their organizations
- External consultants are endlessly debating the definitions of project management (PM) and Organizational Change Management (OCM)
- The Big 3+ firms are subbing independents for strategy and high level change work
- PMO’s are being used less and less as the placement area for change agents and change management consultants
- Change consultants are being moved from function to function (rather than serving as HR business partner types)
- Organizations are creating roles at all levels with the word change in titles.
The list goes on but it all points to an acknowledgement of CM and confusion with CM and a look-back on reasons for the gossamer 70% failure statistic. Those claiming success or a level of success have separated CM into its own entity. Those with the potential to repeat success on the next initiative have raised CM higher in the organization for ownership (which has created OCM).
The future of Change Management could be a people/business focus high in organizations with supporting infrastructure guided and mentored by external influence from small objective focused independents and boutiques firms. Implementation would happen through the direction of program and project streams with both change and project competencies. The best of the best would layer in the development of Human Capital so that change is integrated into culture, improvement, succession and career development.
|
|
