|
|
As an external consultant there is always a fine line between honoring “the way we do things here” and pushing for and guiding change. Many, if not most, organizations have a tie to processes, structure and communication that is hard to break. Here are some areas to keep in mind in terms of the status quo of cultural loyalty:
Group Think
Group think helps people with consistency, clarity and sameness (which is comforting if you keep your viewpoint narrow). It homogenizes to the point where almost everything is predictable. The longer the tenure for an employee the greater the need to stick to the norms-cultural loyalty.
It is surprising how many times at an individual level cultural loyalty (CL) is questioned. The questioning typically (especially if drawn out by a CM practitioner) produces smart, viable alternatives. If that person does not have authority or leverage those alternatives die quickly.
Internal Politics
Patterns appear over time in organizations that are a direct result of the jostling and wrestling for position by individuals. That positioning tends to work the best when the jostler follows the path of least resistance. That path is the road to the way we do things here. So you end up with a structure that rewards and reinforces the status quo.
Functional Loyalty
The same patterns but much harder to break occur at a functional level. Certain functions tend to have more leverage than others (usually because they bring in revenue which, on the surface at least, makes sense). Those functions then match their group think against others. What you end up with is a secondary level of loyalty to culture-functional loyalty. Which is a synonym for a silo.
Founder(s) Influence
The majority of the time the patterns that replicate within the silos and cultural pods in an organization are the result of the founder(s) initial vision, values and business direction. Emulating that package tends to move individuals up the ladder. The more that spreads the more group think builds and the harder to break the way we do things becomes. Another secondary level exists here when the organization gets big enough for the functional leaders to steer their own vision and approach.
Guiding change at the transformational/horizontal level requires the ability to frame the “make sense” communication in order to replace the CL that is holding back change and growth. In my own practice I have found that I must take the difficult step of working with leaders to tweak structure and process before trying to touch cultural and functional loyalty. The same pattern happens with the change process itself. Often there are underlying structural and process weaknesses that will make complete fulfillment of the end state close to impossible.
The fine line approach is to draw out the CL that makes collaboration, negotiating and compromise possible.
- Ramp up the urgency
- Grab some like minded people to help out
- Now create a vision/story that will increase the tension… I mean urgency
- Start talking, start convincing and start bargaining if necessary
- Put some people in charge- in fact hold them accountable NOW
- You might want to consider some short term wins since you are so far into this
- Give 110%. With enough force you can get a square peg in a round hole
- Now glue it all together to form a new legacy
Just a few comments-
This is actually out of order. The last thing you want to do is follow this in order. In case you missed that- It does not have to be in this order. You will probably benefit from moving that urgency part down to the middle where, in a reasonable change effort things make sense, money is there and the people with the competency are in the right place. Then the urgency is to actually get the pieces of the process accomplished.
Why, exactly would you wait until the sixth step for a win? Any kind of a win even a short one. Why not make the first step solid corporate strategy? Believe me letting change come from that will be a BIG win.
The gathering of information to get to a description of the end state would follow.Urgency and vision close to each other is sure to get snickers from those who have seen it before.
Communicating to get buy-in sounds a little like an expensive TV ad. If you need “buy in” you either have weak change or weak leaders. Yes you will need to explain the sensibility of the change and illustrate your command of the upcoming process. Do that and you will have participation with motivation.
Never let up on your focus on tying context of work into the big picture. Never let up on illustrating all of the pieces, all of the timing, all of the successes and all of the changes of direction.
If you have to make it stick you might want to rethink your eight steps…
Thanks to the facts that CM is placed to late and too low, that stakeholders get it and organizations untouched by botched change are rare, practitioners and their leader clients are forced to outright say or infer that, “this time will be different”. And so we have a task built in to the very beginnings of the change process to gather the historical record of Leadership and/or Change Management’s success and failure.
Here is how to get close to supporting that promise-
- Find out why previous efforts were bad or good
- Wind back the clock on this initiative (see fact one above)
- Craft and deliver an introductory communication that clearly lays out upcoming interaction
- Connect with the leader(s) responsible for bullet one
- Mentor and model from day one
You are trying as the CM practitioner and/or the owner of the change to acknowledge the previous attempts, grab a dose of humility for second chances, show your expertise and command of the process and illustrate that change, changes, as you go along.
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.
F. R. Cowell’s Cicero & the Roman Republic, 1948:
“A more critical spirit slowly developed, so that Cicero and his friends took more than the proverbial pinch of salt before swallowing everything written by these earlier authors.”
The earliest meaning of the idiom “ take with a grain of salt” was based on the belief that salt with medicinal mixtures could moderate injurious effects.
Pliny’s Naturalis Historia, 77 A.D. translates:
After the defeat of that mighty monarch, Mithridates, Gnaeus Pompeius found in his private cabinet a recipe for an antidote in his own handwriting; it was to the following effect: Take two dried walnuts, two figs, and twenty leaves of rue; pound them all together, with the addition of a grain of salt; if a person takes this mixture fasting, he will be proof against all poisons for that day.
In order to have proof against all poisons, especially after a rainy day read of CM’s cult figures, we need our grain of salt. Because Change Management taken incorrectly or with the wrong medicine for the wrong ailment can be poisonous.
Stroll over to 12 manage the warehouse of theories http://www.12manage.com/i_co.html for your list. That extensive list is not even all of the models- because mine is not in there. (Yes I would make you take a pinch of the salt for mine too- there is always a chance of misinterpretation).
So a few CM grains of salt for you-
- If you do not know what the change will be (end state) any of the medicines will be poison
- If you do not have the structure to enable the journey- poison.
- If you follow verbatim any of those models’ steps (whether they are supposed to be “in the exact order” or not), theories, boxes, lists or quadrants- sick patient
- If the buck passes like dust in the wind- sneezing
- If everyone is focused on training and communications you have not spent enough on the medication
I write this because I have had many situations where clients insist on a certain approach (easily persuaded readers that they are I guess) believing in the universality of their chosen guru. Like any good doctor, me “the doctor of change”, I carry all of the medication (and placebos of course) in order to provide the patient with the full treatment.
The first thing we both do is add our grains of salt.
… 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?
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.
Or at least allowed to overstay their welcome.
Elephants are big, intimidating and comforting all at once. Elephants you want on your side to protect you.
Here is why they are allowed to stay in organizations-
- They are protection from change
- They are an affirmation of culture
- They separate silos
- They are humilities’ path
I find that the elephant is often called out by stakeholders. Those elephants in the room are usually obvious to all. What is interesting, and an important consideration in approaching change, is that they are often valued and protected. Because when they are, an avenue for avoiding change is reinforced. The elephant will make the change impossible… and we are not going to touch the elephant (a nice circular, insular and protective argument).
Plus, the elephant is part of who we are. To acknowledge and escort it away would make us something different than who we are. Our culture might just change. If our culture changes then each of us changes.
Elephants are social and tend to herd together as a group. Many organizations have an elephant in the conference room of each function. Those functional elephants in the room serve to create space between one function and another. You will have to acknowledge or remove our elephant if you want to collaborate.
It is so much easier to accept deficiencies when there is a scapegoat. The elephant is often the perfect illustration of the organizations’ and the stakeholders’ failings (or potential failings).
Calling out the elephants during the development of the end state description turns out to be a powerful tool. The exercise becomes a little like writing in third person when you are really talking about yourself. The “I have a friend who…” approach. Discussing the elephant in the room and being honest about comfort and hindrance can help to pave the way for a horizontal approach to change management.
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.
|
|
