I coach soccer.
A parent volunteered to create a website with Shutterfly (quite the smart marketing idea for a photo company to provide this service for free). Looking at the preloaded site I realize most of the things I am keeping track of as a coach are there (the parent loaded what I gave him). But not everything. As the coach I have information that should not be shared (or at least have levels of security)…
For a previous post, “Change Management What to Keep Track of”, I looked at what might go in a CM spreadsheet.
Now I am wondering about the spreadsheet itself.
This is why: My information will always have to be entered twice.
In the soccer scenario when a parent adds vacation time I can choose to also put it in my spreadsheet. If a parent gives me vacation information, and I want that available for the team, it has to be recorded twice.
The same thing happens on engagements. I have had this double entry scenario when making lists of competencies. It is helpful for stakeholders to know who the experts are. That talent recording will always be in my CM spreadsheet.
Reactions to This
- If websites (for organizations usually SharePoint) can sort then what is the point of the separate spreadsheet?
- If the practice was to make most things public then the whole issue of recording to show you have done something goes out the window (and you get others to do the tactical work).
- CM processes will/would have to change if information is really “web based”. Do we store the things we look at but don’t want others to see separately, or just keep that information in our heads? (I always have a file that looks a little like the red, green, yellow process I pick on to keep my own notes on individual and group stakeholder motivation).
- What would be the reason for having a public forum? (In the case of the soccer team it could be as a place to share all of the information that might otherwise fly around in emails. The same could be said for the organizational version).
- If you build it will they come? (hint the answer is not so much).
A portal could replace spreadsheets (or another type of file) or it could be twice the amount of work for the change team. Where is the balance between transparency/information and secure storage/note taking? Thinking this through with soccer as a comparison has me wondering about some assumptions we are making about change management’s engagement process and exchange of data.
A site has started in England that might be fun to watch.
Their preamble, and a great post title on Business Week “Clever People vs. Dumb Organizations”, caught my eye.
It is meant to be a forum where people (my words now) can call out the “dumb” thereby reaffirming inequity and, we hope the site creators are going in this direction, do something to make organizations a little smarter. Smarter organizations, by association, will support full potential.
The purpose of this site is to create a virtual place where people frustrated by “Dumb Organisations” (Organizations if you are American) can investigate different views as to why clever people seem to produce organisations that most employees view as underperforming their potential.
This is so true.
Dumb organizations absolutely get in the way of performance, ability to utilize competency and, you have to think, profit.
Let’s go after those dumb organizations and make things better, right and smart!
Before you go storming the castle of dumb consider this: dumb is the symptom.
What you need to look for, to get improvement (always… why is this so hard to comprehend for change?) is root causes. Don’t ask why the dumb came about, don’t analyze the current environment of “dumb”, don’t dwell on all the ramifications of organizational dumbness.
Figure out what is causing this!
Did I say “what”? I meant who or whom .
Still chasing them would, at this point in the dumb cycle, be following symptoms. Those people or persons are now playing in the world of dumb.
Dumb Root Causes
If some (most?) organizations are dumb, I am guessing we can agree on that generalization, then why?
The resources (compensation) that organizations can give to employees are finite. If you were to graph that money out, especially here in the US, you would see a pyramid. I have created a visual representation for you:
Behind every organization’s dumb is a clever person(s).
Let’s face it business is all about hoarding at the top. Start a business you will know what I mean (as clever as you are).
The dumb is created to protect resources.
Protection of resources also equals power. When you have more money than you need there has to be some kind of incentive bonus, right?
This may not be the correct word to use, but since almost all organizations go from the big cheese pyramid to locked-in-structural-dumb it might fit. The pyramid starts early in the organizations history. The structural elements that reinforce it build as the organizations grows. Think of all the things that we assume have to be present in big organizations- governance, performance management systems, hierarchy, acronym titles, steps for pay, etc. These are all Group think. Yes, there ARE organizations that do not have one, two or more of these things (although in fairness those companies probably have informal hidden versions).
Somehow we have all become dumb by having let this happen.
The people who create this are clever and the people who buy into it… my kids would be calling me out for using that “D” word over and over.
So now we need clever people to overcome the dumb?
(Snicker: hey this is what change management practitioners do- the real ones anyway, the others help to reinforce the dumb…the pay is more consistent there).
What will probably not work is to pursue the symptoms of dumb, chase down all the comments this website will produce, thinking that will somehow change things.
Most organizations need some serious transformation to change dumb to smart in order to fully utilize (and fulfill) the competencies of their employees.
So you have a change group set up in your organization.
Things, maybe, aren’t quite going the way you expected.
Perhaps Internal Change Management Side Effects have appeared?
In my own work I spend a lot of time dialing back organizations, teams and internal practitioners to fill in things they missed.
There are some core things that HAVE to exist for change to happen. Getting a few of those “have-to’s” in place can give internal change groups a chance at that leverage and exposure (and dare I say effectiveness?) that they desperately seek.
Need some tips?
- Change your perspective.
First and foremost you HAVE to start thinking in terms of end states, solutions and goals. If you are present focused you are doomed to stay that way. Nothing wrong with the present… when it is the foundation for the future. Craft examples of the future you are going to help guide. Not the “we need this”, “we need that”. Not company x is kicking our you-know-what’s. The spot you want to be that is where you should be looking.
- Back away from the tools.
Tools are a dime a dozen. Pay me for a day and I will give you a stack of them “completely original”. A tool never caused a change. A tool never really facilitated change. A tool always takes time. That was the time you were going to use for tip #1. Without tip #1 you WILL FAIL- no matter how pretty that tool you designed or got sold.
- Give up on owner connection.
For 6 years now I have watched presentations about “leadership buy-in”. Give it up. See scapegoat in yesterday’s post. Those leaders are not listening. Lucky for you there are leaders who will listen. Not the owners, unfortunately, but the implementary leaders. Those leaders who got the buck passed to them and are now the unofficial owners. Officially they are the owners now, but stakeholders see right through that. They could really use your help (you NOT your tools).
- Partner with implementary leaders.
Teach them how to craft end states. Give them a communication plan that is both formal and informal. Create a set of templates that call out this change (yes there are some tools that pass muster). Get a quick mix of leadership interaction early in the change process (use video, audio, text, social media and surprise in person visits). Be the spokesperson and the conduit for this leader (like you wish you could do with the owner-remember you gave that up, right?). (Do this right and the leader you are working with now, will become the owner you crave in the future- call it your personal change end state).
- Establish a landing spot.
It shocks me that these change groups so feverishly set up rarely have a virtual landing spot. There are a lot of hoops to get through to create social media, even if it is just one SharePoint portal, I realize that. I have had a couple of change initiatives that were JUST social media set up, nothing else. This is HAVE #2. Without a landing spot to help differentiate, compare, contrast and put change in context you will FAIL.
- Get out of the cave and see the light.
Insularity kills change groups. Actually I have yet to see a change group be taken away (which bodes well for CM). So inward thinking makes for sick, unhealthy change groups. I can say, no generalization what so ever, there is not a leader of a change group who is more senior or more experienced than some external consultant. I, personally, have been in 70+ cultures doing something for each organization. There is no way an internal can match that. Why would you not use mine or some other external consultants knowledge? Is this about you or the results and the effect you have? Hiding in a cave has never made change happen.
Tips aside look at it this way: You are trying to help your organization get to a spot. That spot requires the talent of individuals. Those individuals need to be able to participate. What can you do to make sure the right people are lined up at the right time to use their talent to pave the way to that spot? It is your role to lay the trail to that spot.
Six tips that can help change groups catch up a little and survive even if a few pieces are missing: how you see change, what you use to get there, who you partner with, how you communicate and a suggestion to look outward instead of inward.
Thanks to the power of Google we can ask questions and usually find the exact question.
Or we can ask a question and a blogger will create a post with an answer.
This question has landed on my blog multiple times.
My experience tells me the answer is a list of underlying things that develop over time to manage, control and keep track of an expanding company. Anything that reinforces the present can be said to make change hard.
Start up’s often have a completely loose structure that utilizes every bit of each individuals skill and time. Stuff has to get done and people are anxious to do stuff. Everything is solution and goal oriented. No fluff. No monitoring.
There comes a point in a company’s development where the goals get bigger, the solutions wider. Either by the nature of the confusion of big, or because this is the way it always works, levels of reporting are added. First it is founder and employees. Then Directors get added (or with some firms, comically VP’s who set up and find reports). Then later the Directors need a promotion so another layer is added. Each time a new product or service is created more layers (or at least verticals) get tacked on.
Each employee has to have someone to report to right?
(Except that I have seen start-ups with lots of employees not have any real reporting structure).
Each new reporting arrangement creates another layer of potential internal politics. Practitioners take note- chasing politics for change management is addressing the symptom rather than the cause.
Measurement is a necessity. Without it there is no way to adjust planning and process to get better (and more profitable).
Keeping track of things like sales figures makes sense- especially if the recording is baked into current processes to not take much time.
It is when measurement becomes a thing in and of itself, say measuring the effectiveness of a change process, that change gets hard. When measurement becomes justification for something (this is the perfect example of that) then it will be hard for an organization to change. Never have I seen this example lead to betterment. The numbers and “best practices” end up sitting in a spreadsheet on SharePoint gathering dust.
Measure for effectiveness. Measure for genuine improvement so measurement does not make it hard to change.
The world seems filled with many more rule makers than the opposite.
Organizations at a certain size suck these people in like a vacuum. Governance is putting parameters around things. Governance is putting parameters on the things people do within organizations. Governance is police measurement. People (who are the core of the actions needed for change) don’t much like that much external control.
I find it interesting that those who are in charge of governance in organizations are the least amenable to change.
The more inward an organization the harder it will be for them to make any changes.
The worst change initiatives are those done completely internally. They rearrange everything in the present to create a new present.
The things that make the organization turn inward are the things that make change difficult.
Here is a short list for insularity: measuring your best practices, gathering the best practices of equally insular organizations, hiring contractors instead of consultants, insisting on “industry expertise, any “my way or the highway” attitude, command and control structures, silos within etc.
This list of four things: reporting, measurement, governance and insularity is the framework I use in my practice to decide whether (and to what extent) it will be hard for my client’s organization to change. These four things answer the question, “Why is it so Hard for Organizations to Change?”.
I waited a few years before speaking out and honing a contrarian voice.
The balance between discerning and critical is a high wire act.
When I am not smiling on engagements and or my emails get short (my emails have their own prod –people-along-in-a-positive-way voice and tone) someone always says something. “Is anything wrong”, they say. “I’m resting”, is my response.
(By the way there is ALWAYS something wrong AND there is ALWAYS something right).
That was four lines to give me permission to comment on the latest ACMP market research report.
It could be critical (pun intended)…
This post is about the bow not the package inside
Change Management as a discipline is growing and is generally regarded as valuable, but the industry is fragmented and in need of standardization. Practitioners want certification and credentialing processes as part of the maturation of change management. About 1/3rd of organizations have some sort of formal Change Management office, but almost three quarters of Change Management practitioners must also fulfill other professional roles.
This is their “Key Themes and Findings” statement/call out
Yes Change Management is a discipline and it is DEFINITLY growing (as in number of people practicing or saying they are practicing- stop with the puns). Those who do not see it as valuable (in general) are the minority naysayers and/or number crunchers.
The industry is fragmented. Yes. And I mean that, yes, thank god! Because if it was not then that would mean someone’s relentless effort to standardize has won.
Oh no…in my excitement I forgot to read the rest of the sentence.
I will say it LOUD now (it is too late to hide my perspective) YOU WISH PROSCI. Yes I know this is an “ACMP” report. They are still one in the same Prosci/ACMP are basically interchangeable terms. (In fact when they are not that is when change management will REALLY have grown up).
Which practitioners want certification? The ones who have not been “certified” by the clients who hired them? That whole sentence:
“Practitioners want certification and credentialing processes as part of the maturation of change management.” is a load of you-know-what.
They have to be happy they could word questions in a way that gets the responses that gives them a chance to make that completely bogus generalization. Now if they had said “low level hiring managers” instead of practitioners the general would be stripped right out of this. That is exactly what the number crunchers who are losing the battle want.
And sorry, but certification is going to make us all less mature in our practice not more. (Masters and Doctorate degrees plus experience, that is certification).
I can honestly say the last sentence seems to be correct from my experience. I do mean correct for both meanings. Dedicated internal change professionals may not be a good idea. I am still on the fence for that discussion. Dedicated external practitioners is a VERY good idea. Anyone internal who can add smart change management to their work is helpful.
All of the above is my reaction (when we anticipate something and it happens our feelings are very much “reactions”… hmm any correlation there to “resistance”?) to the call out bow that sums up the whole report. Any chance it was written before the study was designed? Odds are it could have been. They (ACMP who is really PROSCI) got exactly what they wanted. Everyone thinking that CM needs some “certification” and “standardization” is a cash cow for them. Why is it I am the only one calling out this bait and sell?
In all fairness, because I am a change management consultant so I must practice the in-all-fairness approach, CM does need some agreement. It does need a glossary that is at least partially agreed upon (things like strategy/tactics, low to mid to high level consultant definition, consultant vs. contractor, internal/external understanding, etc.). It probably needs PROCSI-ish companies (as long as they are not overreaching and making a mess of CM… although, as I have said before, that just makes more work for the senior strategy consultants). CM is full of tactics- so some of the things I push against really do have a place and spot.
Personally I intend to carry on in the same way with an end state approach that assesses, clarifies and leverages people and talent. Those who are not on the standardization (commoditization?) gravy train… sorry I mean bandwagon… seem to be doing versions of the same thing. THEY are growing, maturing and working (with a little bit higher rate each time).
Think about this… to get the result intended from a report like this you have to have an end state perspective. Write the call out and then make it happen…hmmm.
There may be some who think change management needs to be stuffed into a box with crystal clear parameters and hard edges. There are others who know this practice is about people and business- neither of which can be narrowly defined. The ACMP report call out clearly delineates one of these two camps. On to the actual report tomorrow.
Do you ever have those dreams, asleep or in the middle of the day, where you can use mind control on things?
During those times I can usually levitate things, move stuff around the room, rearrange a friends furniture, turn things on and off and generally have fun and cause mischief without lifting a finger. Then, of course, I wake up. Try as I might nothing moves around me without actual physical effort.
Thankfully Samsung is here to help and we have our Fast Change Around Us for the week.
They are developing ways for us to control our computers with our minds.
Since computers can automate just about anything, by extension we may not need our hands for very long. Samsung’s “Thought Experiment” has people wearing a cap with electrodes, you know like Frankenstein. Subjects have been able to concentrate on an icon on the screen and have the app. open.
There are also bluetooth headsets being made that can enter passwords from thought.
The upscale thought connection is to simply go with the implant. So far only the pigs and the monkeys get to play with that one.
But we can play in another way.
The implants apparently get a little hot. Nice. So we will have people standing around our heads to warm their hands on cold thought-intense days?
Will we get to a point where we consider those who just think-things-done as lazy?
Or will we belittle those ridiculous enough to use their hands for things? That is so OLD FASHIONED!
How do we make sure people can’t control someone elses computer? I must admit it would be fun to be on the cutting edge of this before the security software gets up to speed.
On lazy days where we really do not want to accomplish anything will we just open and close stuff for the heck of it? ‘Sounds exhausting though…
Will we have to concentrate harder to create or delete/erase?
Will mind-control-concentration become a marketable skill?
It seems for change management we might be right on the edge of that point where emotionless leaders can just will people to change by thinking REALLY hard.
Tablet mind control. It is on its way. Be ready for the ramifications.
Apologies to female readers out there for the sexist title. It is a recognized term, but do know that I meant “Middle People” or the “Middle Person”. Google, unfortunately will recognize the first term and not the others.
If you have read previous posts you know I am not thrilled with Middle Men. Just the wording shows that something will be in the way. Things “in the middle” separate the ends. My biggest irritation is third parties in the middle of consulting agreement (and connection and success). Third party middle men, and yes, middle women too, make me very disillusioned. Really that money should be mine (or split with the client so I make more and they pay less for exactly the same thing).
Middle things that add to the cost of something we buy- that is disillusionary.
Anyone who gets in the way of dialogue and makes things move slower causes a good amount of disillusion to all involved.
Doors are meant to keep people out, otherwise why would we have them?
Windows are views to both sides impenetrable when closed and hard to pass through when open. They are like third-party middle persons with low markups (that would actually be me at times… at least I recognize a fair markup).
So while really getting riled up the other day at all of the middle roadblocks around me I got to thinking… sometimes it is impossible to cross a creek without stepping on the stones. Take the stones away and you are stuck or get to your destination drenched.
There are times when something in the middle helps. I built a relationship with two sides of competing interests on an engagement. Being in the middle gave me the opportunity to understand the perspective of each side and the perspective of each side of the other so I could mediate. You know, be a middle man. I got an instant messaging stream going with one side one day and then via my own form of change management translation started a stream with the other side.
I was able to go back and forth addressing the issue knowing I was representing each side (and solutions) fairly. It was wonderful! And it erased a little of my disillusion for being in the middle (or of anyone else being in the middle). Yes they should have talked to EACH other instead of through me. Yes this is a little petty to have to solve human issues through hidden text messaging. It seemed wonderful… don’t get me back to disillusioned.
Moral of this short story. If the middle is a stone that creates a passage to a new place then it is wonderful. If the middle is a door that effectively blocks passage -disillusionary. Trying to figure out this equation over and over again has me Wonderfully disillusioned.
There are still some senior consultants hanging on to the belief that this profession is about managing resistance. So I did a little title rearranging.
People don’t resist change
What they sometimes do is choose to not participate (that’s not resistance).
Take a look at this often used list of “reasons people resist change”:
- There isn’t any real need for the change
- The change is going to make it harder for them to meet their needs
- The risks seem to outweigh the benefits
- They don’t think they have the ability to make the change
- They believe the change will fail
- Change process is being handled improperly by management
- The change is inconsistent with their values
- They believe those responsible for the change can’t be trusted
One by one:
- There isn’t any real need for the change.
Anything that is new should be communicated. When it comes to change that means understanding and describing end states. Don’t make the assumption there is a need for change until you put that assumption through a future oriented magnifying glass.
- The change is going to make it harder for them to meet their needs.
Says who? And why assume that right off the bat? And if that is so then it is not them resisting it is the way you describe the change (or pushing change that can’t be shown to be valuable at an individual level).
- The risks seem to outweigh the benefits.
What big risk doesn’t look like this? Benefits, especially when it comes to change, are not always easy to quantify. Possible value, possible positive change in environment, possible extra revenue (if you are looking for a business benefit) might work within the end state description. Don’t ever start by assuming people think change, or your change, has no benefit.
- They don’t think they have the ability to make the change.
This one is just baloney. If your talent is that lacking in confidence maybe you just came up with your first change initiative.
- They believe the change will fail.
Cause they all do. Or at least 70% do right? Can I have some mustard with this additional BALONEY?
- They believe those responsible for the change can’t be trusted.
OK maybe one of these would make my list. They are probably right in thinking this, but again the resistance is what? Not participating? Is an agnostic attitude resisting?
- The change is inconsistent with their values.
That would be strange since organizations develop their own values and people choose organizations and change rarely tweaks that much. Unless we are talking about a take-over or “merger”, then we could have two clashing cultures.
- They believe those responsible for the change can’t be trusted.
Well who would trust them when they automatically assume their employees/stakeholders will put up some screaming resistance-hissy fit. I don’t trust people who think like that either. (For a second there I thought we were talking about engaging a consultant).
Stop with the resistance thing!
Change itself is the problem.
It is complicated. It requires the ability to think into the future and bring that view back to the talent (or lack thereof) in the present. It is hard (but I would say that is what can make it very enjoyable). It takes time, money and effort. Yes it does. Assume that and work the assumption into your planning.
Change can also be something people willingly choose to participate in. NEVER make the assumption the opposite is the case. Those positive people will see right through you and just maybe, actually resist when they were on board a second ago. The negative people were going to resist anyway (with this narrow thinking). So now you get what you ask for (and actually WORSE).
I sometimes joke that Change Management is in its adolescence.
Most practitioners know what needs to happen and are confident they could make it happen if they had the right tools and environment.
The have ridden go cars so driving a car seems easy.
But they are not old enough to drive legally.
And they do not realize the license does not make anyone better, just certified at some level.
So to get this passion and confidence to work effectively for individuals and organizations, what does Change Management need?
- Diverse Talent
- Better Partnerships
- More Mentoring
In no particular order (because some may rely on others) here is a list that would be helpful:
We, as an industry or profession, are much more visible and credible than we were just 5 –10 years ago.
Change Management roles are all over, internal and external. Most projects now have line items for CM. Program almost always do. Anyone who is starting a transformation without CM would be seen as a little looped and out of touch.
Whether that exposure is the right kind is debatable.
Prosci with its tactical middle of the organization approach (I am not impressed with their new “Enterprise” offerings) gave us a TON of exposure. I would be happy to have that reduced to something measured in pounds. There is exposure and there is credibility. The kind of exposure they have given has reduced credibility. (Although as I have said before that does make senior practitioners look more credible).
Change management needs more exposure, but the right kind.
With exposure can come influence.
To have people know about CM and understand it at some level is fantastic. For that exposure to turn into reach outs and connection from leaders is something different.
We will know we have influence when senior executives (SVP and higher) begin to contract directly with consultants. The trusted adviser role is significant for influence. Multiple versions of that role would signal CM has arrived, in the right places.
I meant this as multiple specialties being able to feed into the big CM spot.
Now I look at my own category and think if we had diverse talent within individuals that are practicing change perhaps we could gain exposure and influence. We may want to practice pure consultative CM. In reality we have to be able to do that and get our hands dirty with the tactical work of spreadsheets, training, logistics and a little project management here and there.
If we can not get the exposure and influence at the highest levels (I have been watching upwards of 10 years and this has not happened yet) then we must get real good at partnering.
We need to partner across verticals to create horizontal change management.
We need to partner with project managers and business leads.
We need relationships with director level subject matter experts because that is where the to-do lists get done.
We need to be able to develop loose partnerships with functions in order to push for new rules and new guidelines- if we ever expect to address root causes that stop or slow change.
We need to share.
I have been flattered in the last year or two to have junior practitioners ask for help on different things.
My experience has placed me in over 70 cultures and environments, but I do not always know how that translates into something to give back to our profession. Those junior practitioners are quick to give examples of how that might work.
And so I to get mentored in a way.
They catch me up, they question me, they agree and disagree. And that exchange makes me better and, hopefully more credible.
Change Management needs some exposure that leads to influence that s supported by diverse talent, all of which feeds back into the profession through mentoring and engagement at different levels.
Every year at the ACMP (Association of Change Management Professionals) conference I make a little list of the trends that will appear next year-in my head. I am usually right. ‘Nothing special about that though. Change practitioners are good at seeing patterns, knowing how things connect and taking educated guesses about what those connections mean. Maybe that is a competency. Maybe that is just paying a little extra attention to a bigger picture than others.
For this yearly prediction (parked in my head in the past now thrown into the written word) it is easy to get it right because, thanks to my location at the edge of the Silicon Valley, and senior stature, I am probably already consulting on the trend.
I can pretend I am a soothsayer :-):
2013 Change Predictions
- Change “synonym for sustainability”
- Tactical Backlash
- Round Two of Change Entities
- Trusted Advisers Return
Change “synonym for sustainability”
Judging from the character of this year’s conference and things I am seeing at client sites our next change wave is “trying to get things to stick”. The group think approaches will layer on another coat of the same hoping that something changes. (Hey that’s just like the environment that existed before we change practitioners arrived… funny things people, ha?).
The smart approaches will come out of well set up and correctly placed change entities. Those smart approaches will, more and more, be future focused. They will be less methodology/model and more perspective/attitude.
Once, I was engaged AFTER the end state.
“Help us make this work and last” was the contract. The phone will likely ring a little bit more for these next year.
There is a quiet (barely) current of backlash going on at this year’s conference.
The words I have heard are, “low level”, “tactical”, “for the one to three year consultant”, “easy to sell, useless for high level”, “where is the strategy?” and more.
Conferences are always some version of ware-hocking and snake oil wagons. This one is no different. Change practitioners are hungry to get away from status quo, group think, their own organization-duplicated silo’s and the inability to get the ear of leaders.
The conference is heavy with internals.
I stick with my rule that change does not work without external influence. There will be, and always is, a backlash against certain kinds of external influences. The more those internals interact with single or small groups of externals (and less with the big boys… [and girls] that ceiling is still pretty rock solid) the more they will see what works and what doesn’t. Or should I say “who” works and who doesn’t?
The ACMP panel would be smart to screen for, or better ask for, some controversy, inward perspective and a shake up of our profession. (Selfishly I would love to take that on!).
Round Two of Change Entities
Round one, over the last six to seven years, is the heavily organic or functionally placed versions of Change Entities. They are not called “entities”. They are “Centers of Excellence”, “Change Functions”, “Change Groups” (that is a little better), etc.
Round two (already starting, certainly my passionate choice for engagements) are the a Entities (no quotes :-). They will be connected to the owner, have an external voice and be built to provide old fashioned OD (Organizational Development if you missed that stage of our industry) in order to develop competencies that match end states.
Round two (maybe this is three?) will have both starting from scratch at the highest owner level (preferably of the NEXT change not this one) and redoing what already exists. Organic will always be there (if only to feed our second option…sorry snark).
Trusted Advisors Return
I have been, selfishly of course, awaiting the return of the Trusted Adviser.
That role is crucial to innovation, executive development and change. When that role exists it means, pay attention here because THIS is what CM needs, a senior leader reached out and took a chance.
Cheating I am on this one, because leaders are reaching out to me this year for first level conversations (that is how this trusted adviser partnership should start- no contracting, no client/consultant relationship, just conversation and dialogue).
Trusted advisers will do many things. That list I will save for another post…
Next year, about this time, be ready for the trends of change management after the fact, a backlash to tactical approaches, advanced Change Entities and the return of the Trusted Adviser.