|
|
I googled change management this morning to see the latest hawked wares and approaches. Since I am a spatial learner and love pictures I chose “images of change” as my first stop.http://tinyurl.com/245t9s5.
Wow.
Could the approaches be more overwhelming? Change itself has a tendency to be the same. As a practitioner wouldn’t you want to make the process easier? Although if I am selling snake oil…
Here are some observations from my image journey-
- Change practitioners adjust their approach to their own perspective (strategic, OD focused, PMO based, Leadership oriented etc)
- Change apparently either revolves around a hub (yes I am guilty with my spider web article-http://issuu.com/garrettgitchell/docs/prosci2010paper), moves along a torturous curve or follows clearly from step to step on a timeline (oh and it could look like an iceberg which is really helpful for the whole fear of change thing)
- You need phases, must have phases
- They are all heavily influenced by historical gurus
- Change is funny (I admit I did like the pictures and cartoons)
After a couple hundred blog posts of my own (maybe I need “the book” to get there) I still can’t quite explain this, but they all feel like they are forcing change into a funnel that magically comes out the other end with a solution. I can picture what an engagement would look like about 3 months in having followed one of these pretty pictures (you can bet the practitioners are inextricably entwined with their own drawings). If I were to ask at that point, “what will this look or feel like when it is all over?”, odds are the answer would not be there (for the practitioner, the leader and especially for the stakeholder).
For that to happen, assumptions, perspective and history usually have to be unraveled, looked at and then rebundled into a change approach that works back from the goal rather than forward to …. can’t resist…. infinity and beyond.
Newsweek article has my head spinning on a creative streak. http://tinyurl.com/27krc5j or the old fashioned paper version-much more tactile. It turns out the reason for that spin is a process of looking at something from the familiar and facts, to searching for other connections hanging around in our brains, to refocusing on the tie. And “Bam!” as one creative says- the “aha!” moment.
This is the creativity of ideas. It is the ability to see things from a different angle, perspective, approach. This is innovation at its core.
What it requires (ideas and therefore innovation and… possibly change?) is the ability to have divergent-convergent thinking. Adults, and it appears children too, thanks to our move toward a rote approach to education, spend a lot of time and are measured on the convergent side. Think deliverables, results, specifics. Divergent is less nurtured, if at all, and tends to have something to do with crayons, pens and scissors (usually not pencils).
When it comes to people, task and change management this presents a dilemma. Convergent thinking will create some urgency, quick wins and action and run roughshod over aha moments. By nature change if it is at all horizontal requires divergent thought. It certainly needs a few aha spots. Which means a change practitioner should be adept at fusing right brain to left and or bringing that out in others. A really good practitioner/leader would build those possibilities into the system/process/structure and fabric of the organization.
I came across a post the other day that said getting stakeholders to use new technology meant addressing their own self interest http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-manager/?p=3976. The post is on the right track. IT implementations are, admittedly, a specific type of change. Every form of change has a “punch a different key” aspect and IT change rarely stays confined in a nice manageable timeline. So lets look at self interest as a general perspective.
Well, of course
Everything we do is in our own self interest. The more we need to change the more our self interest comes into play. We balance need for action against willingness to act. We place ourselves inside the change to see if there is a fit. We watch those around us to see how self interest guides them. We measure action against inaction on a self interest scale.
Just another resistance approach?
Something is just not right with this view of change…it feels negative. “No way are they going to do this… because it is not in their own best interests.” I sense the next statement would be, “we need to show them what not changing will look like”. And then you have another approach based on the assumption that people automatically resist.
Self interest is OK
Better we look at self interest as an automatic thing. Better we use it advantageously. What happens as a result of self interest is usually a symptom of something else- especially if it is inaction. Is the structure of the organization getting in the way? Has history of botched change put up walls? Is the reward system so based on paying off self interest that participating on a larger scale does not make sense? Is self interest dialed in and out based on functional connection (this I have seen in IT do to the specificity of their roles, but they certainly do not own functional connection)? Is corporate strategy weak and/or short term? Do changes make sense (all the way to the individual level)?
Having asked these questions self interest begins to be a barometer of the effectiveness of the organization and its people. It turns out to be a way to, yes, find out reasons to resist. Addressing those valid reasons is a first step for an effective change approach. Self interest just became OK.
Change is always about action. Or for the historical, resistance approaches, inaction.
For action to happen there must be some stimulus that gets it started and keeps it going. The trigger/switch at the individual level is motivation. That foundation out of the way, who is in charge of the triggers?
The Individual
You would think it would start here. The individual most likely assumes it will start somewhere else. When an individual has chosen to do something on their own, say find a job, they are certainly responsible for motivation. They will feed that with the carrots and sticks of different opportunities. But when an individual is expected to do something they relinquish control of motivation.
The Boss
Which brings us to the first level leaders. They are the closest to core motivational action. They have the chance to effect action. Unfortunately they are the bosses- as my kids say, “stop bossing me around”. Doubly unfortunate is the fact that they are also individuals. They are saddled with the need to both act and be responsible for action. With so much action on the radar it is easy to forget that action requires motivation.
The Mid Level Manager
It is here that the carrots and sticks are stacked, measured, bargained for and grouped. Since carrots and sticks are a fairly weak motivator, force and coercion are often chosen as alternatives. So now we have an individual who is also a boss delivering blows and wishing they could somehow satisfy everyone- which would probably increase motivation and therefore the right actions.
The Acronym Leaders
At this level you get your title shortened, from seven and eight letters (and more) to 2- VP. Not only must motivation at an individual level (which of course includes the VP) be considered, but there is now an invisible core energy centered around function (read skill, focus and a certain kind of specific motivation) that has a powerful action/inaction lever. Competing motivators and competing actions (or not) appear. The more this person takes charge of functional motivators the more they tend to run head-on into disparate organizational motivators- especially if they are wrapped up in a change package.
Enter the Figureheads
SVP’s.
Their idea of individual now means something completely different. Their understanding of motivators has been tarnished by the rise through the other levels. My favorite motivator- make this make sense- has lost its importance next to, “here is the list make it happen”. The SVP’s have a confusing list of competing interests, all of our categories, plus functions in general, sometimes the combination of functions (who do not always get along- think sales and marketing), the board (since many of them sit there), which means shareholders (a category of individuals that has a serious, often detrimental effect on motivation and action)…
Which leads to the Founder/CEO/Evangelist
It is just as easy to say they are in charge of motivation as it is to say the same of the individuals. For both you might just be right. While this individual (mixing categories again) has the weight of the world on their shoulders they also have all the potential for motivation that can create both action and the motivation to act. They can guide systems, processes, structure and rewards. They can acknowledge (hint- biggest motivator for action), stir collaboration, mediate disputes and discrepancies and bring in the tools and resources to motivate worthwhile action (another hint- see make sense above).
We might have to call it a tie.
In the hierarchical structure, horizontal/matrixed or not, the top person is ultimately, on paper, in charge of motivation. In a democratic, each-person-is-a-shining-light culture, the individual is in charge of every action (not necessarily responsible, just in charge). So it is a tie. Since each person is an individual tie broken.
Which creates a nasty circular looped argument for change management to focus on the individual in terms of action. Search “change management” and you will find approaches that slot right in.
Motivation requires an input, which creates energy to stimulate action. Skip the input (makes sense is one) and go straight to the energy (urgency?) and you get…an equal and opposite reaction.
Approaches to action/change that look at the organizations world from an individual stakeholder perspective back at all the sticks, all the carrots, all of our categories and all of the other angles that influence motivated action (the best kind for change, read “Champions”) …work.
Those approaches create Vision to Work… for a change.
(couldn’t resist a plug )
I cozied up under a big blanket with my family and watched an awesome fireworks show. From my spot, my frozen moment in time, I could hear four languages. Before it got dark I could see grunge, full Indian attire, shorts, jeans, silk and denim. There were footballs, Frisbees, baseballs, soccer balls and plastic bags made into balls. People were barbequing, eating from coolers, opening pizza boxes, scooping up with chopsticks.
What exactly were each of these people celebrating?
I can think of a list- freedom, independence, history, America, opportunity, overcoming adversity, the power of the individual, the sense of community (there is nothing better than the communal gasps when a really big fireworks spread hits), awe, beauty, just being outside with family. From bluebloods (my family goes back to well before independence so I get to imagine what it was like then) to newly arrived immigrants the Fourth of July means something. Of course it means something different to each person.
If you were tasked to gather those different perspectives and tie them in to a shared understanding of what the fourth represents you would have to ask a lot of questions and you would get a big range. But the behavior and the feeling and the connection you heard in the answers would have consistency. You could label it; you could language around it. And later you could celebrate in a shared, but different way.
With change management it is important to know that each person sees, acts and celebrates from their own set of eyes and their own connections. Behaviors can be consistent with change, reactions can be put into a list, timing can even be measured, but perspective (which guides action and participation) must be drawn out and understood. Create events and celebrations that give the opportunity for the full range of connection. Draw out perspective with the knowledge that each will be a little different and you can have successful change and the chance to honor the success with celebration.
Because it creates a chance for congregation, for display of achievement, for shining a light on talent, for the noise of a communal group, for laughter, for conversation and for acknowledgement. A parade is a good analogy for understanding Change Management.
We have a Fourth of July parade here in Danville that attracts 40,000 people (almost the same as our population). It is a typical local parade. Lawn chairs are lined up the night before 2 and 3 deep for over a mile. Proof positive that everyone loves a parade.
Change benefits (and moves along smoother and faster) when tradition and people are recognized in the process of changing. A parade happens at the same time each year. Some participants are there for years at a stretch. Some go in and out. Some show up just once. In long standing parades there is an order to the procession. But who’s to say there is not a better sequence?
There will be whispered comments about this year versus last year, the parade not being the same as it used to etc. This is the continual conversation that goes on with the tradition/change interaction.
Within the parade are displays of achievement, participation and accomplishments. An annual meeting can do the same with the last years change. When called out as change and included in a change entities process the displays can become more of a cultural acknowledgment and less of a display of feathers.
Celebration is important in the change process. Tying that celebration into the fabric of an organizations culture can help with transitions from yesterdays tradition to tomorrows change.
Having an external consultant with a broad peer network that you can trust is invaluable. They can break the expensive staffing firm middle man cost, they can refer from specific knowledge of capability and they can find answers and comparisons for your organizational conundrums.
There was a discussion recently on LinkedIn about an internal employee recommending a consultant to his boss. The poster wondered if there should be referral fee; if it was ethical. The answer is no, but look at the arrangements that are made with third parties- one consultant bringing another in under the cover of “sub-contracting”. How come that is ok?
However lucrative I am not comfortable with these arrangements (staffing firms calling themselves consultants being the worst example) because now cash can guide recommendations. How strong is that referral now that money is changing hands?
When it does hasn’t your trusted advisor just turned into a gatekeeper?
Gate keeping can have its advantages if that person truly understands the individuals and the need. Impartial makes the understanding objective. Cash turns the pick of who to recommend into a subjective exercise.
The other way around view, from the consultant’s perspective can get even more confusing. Many consultants feel they “own” the client relationship. Weasel (their word not mine) into that “trusted” arrangement and you have broken the consultant ethical code. Most consultants will expect a fee for that connection (enter the non compete contract- which , thankfully, here in CA is not worth the paper its printed on).
At that exchange your trusted advisor just became a gatekeeper. A gatekeeper in the interests of their own pocket book not your needs.
Ask that key consultant of yours what they think of the ethics of consultant referrals and payment before you give them the trusted advisor label/role.
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.
Not the best of situations, but common, especially for smaller technology implementations. Don’t despair, change management can always be weaved in to project work. Here are some general areas to address-
Awareness
Of two types- illustrating the connection of individual work, task and effort to the overall goals (best end state) of the project and showing an understanding of the difficulties of change. What is the true intent of this project? Starting with effect on you, what are the things that will happen that slow your regular work down, bother you or force you to look at things differently? As the “overlapped” CM, address those in your interaction and communication.
Skills and Competencies
Put extra effort into making sure that the work for the project is given to the person best suited for the role. Each time you get a precise fit acknowledge that expertise in the individual. You can do that personally and/or include kudos in your communications.
The effect of the organization
Your company will have guidelines, measurement and processes that will inevitably get in the way of change. Each of those will be owned, have been designed by (or both) a person. They will be a stumbling block for you unless the change can make sense to them in some way. Take the time to connect and find that sensibility.
The effect of the culture
As with organizational processes there will be certain ways to get things done. Those “ways” will not be written down. If you are an employee they will be engrained in your approach to work. If you are an employee they could be invisible to you or you might acknowledge them and think they are no big deal. They are.
When it comes to culture you have to walk a fine line between getting things done (if it is change it is new and it probably does not fit into the old mold) and honoring. You will have to show how to do things differently thus skirting cultural issues. Or you will have to call out those patterns and get consensus on trying things differently. Or you will simply have to honor them and double your time frames.
If you are puzzled by this change management thing, but placed in a position to either be responsible for it or feel the need to layer it in keep this in mind in your approach-
Change means something new; new means doing things differently; guide stakeholders through that. Use yourself as a model and you will make a difference in the transition for the people involved and your business.
Stuck with CM too low and too late as a leader or practitioner?
If you are sitting in that spot you probably have little control or influence over corporate strategy, the strategy for the change rollout (if there really is one), the ownership of the initiative, the accountability of leadership tied to the initiative or overall timing. If you are interested in doing things “right” you are in for a long haul.
What you might want to try is to be influential, make a difference, in the speed and acceptance of the change. At its core that is what CM is about. So you are simply leveraging your core competency.
Some suggestions:
- Strip away extras (that suck up budget) like readiness assessments
- Focus on descriptions of a changed environment rather than end states
- Go with “because” as an answer to why (I know cringe factor there) and be helpful and available
- Communicate context to the timeline (rather than the strategic bigger picture)
- Accept that CM can be a project management add on and then practice CM (reach out to leaders, mentor, distribute supporting information to grow awareness, illustrate cross functional collaboration, etc)
Part of the reason CM is approached the way it is with most models and most organizations is because of the thrown in the middle pattern. Initially the idea of CM was to speed along projects. It had an “insertion” basis and so the gurus developed models to address that client need.
Things have changed; stakeholders get it and expect more.
Organizations made up of lots of people and lots of group think move slowly on the change scale.
I am beginning to think that to push that boat takes organic change management in the middle, with leaders, with new employees added to each and every change and operational tweak. If speed is the final measure then addressing that first and making a difference on a smaller scale may be the light for tackling the bigger, wider change as a web approach.
|
|
