|
|
There is something very enjoyable about opportunities to “toot our own horns”. It feels good to hear yourself acknowledge your own success. If the toot elicits a welcome response all the better. Of course I am assuming here an accomplishment vetted in our own heads (not braggadocio).
And so you say, “what does this have to do with change management?”. I’m glad you asked. One up on hearing my own horn tooting is to encourage others to do the same. How often are we given genuine permission to lay out our tackled obstacles?
If you are guiding change as a leader or practitioner this is a tool in your belt- the ability to reveal pride in work. Use it. Use it to reaffirm success. Use it to increase future participation. Use it as an easy way to reward. Use it for dialogue. Cheat a little if you want and use it to possibly get a return platform to spread your feathers.
We need to language a term for this.
Objectives empathy… ? Invitational reward? An acronym? TYH?
I am taking the opportunity while I have your attention to toot my own horn. Here is my own favorite blog post from horizontal change- http://horizontalchange.com/2010/07/c-level-change-management-primer/ (no tiny URL’s for this one!).
It is my favorite because it actually helps me each time I look at it (I, of course, hope that is also true for my readers). It lays out the major areas and the major players in big change. I had fun with words and content alignment. It is one of those posts that begs more. Like a John Irving book kept on the nightstand for a year, closed (I have done that twice now) and ready, it waits to be read.
There my horn has stopped, thanks for the chance.
Technorati Tags: change management consultant, Communications, engagement, stakeholders
“Beware of losing trust by blaming others (i.e. making internal attributions about them). Also beware of making excuses (external attributions) that lead you to repeat mistakes and leads to Cognitive Dissonance in others when they are making internal attributions about you. “http://tinyurl.com/24acxdd (from Changing Minds.org one of my favorite dig deep reading sites). The Attribution Theory.
Some change management connections-
- Internal attributions are often silent and shared- CM practitioners must learn to draw them out and attach new behavior/perspective.
- External attributions spread fast and can become mythical- They are best illuminated and stopped as quick as possible.
- Empathy is a powerful tool here- Despite the silliness of many of these attributions we all do it, it is human, acknowledge that.
- Cognitive Dissonance is uncomfortable- stakeholders are often thrilled to have a CM help them clear the fog.
- See previous bullet point for speeding up and making decisive, decisions.
- Much like negative attitudes these attributions are easily reinforced- hence the ability to overcome the reinforcement, and to teach how, is a key competency for CM’s.
Keep the Attribution Theory in mind early in your change efforts (and throughout since it takes awhile to change the behavior). Your goal as a CM/leader should scrape away anything that points fingers, clouds perspective and influences others to not participate or worse leads others to sabotage the initiative.
Technorati Tags: Communication, stakeholders
My kids have a list of bad words (dumb, stupid etc.). It turns out there are some adult bad words too. No not the ones you are thinking.
Change
This is, apparently, when you take something that is not that broken and tweak it. Or simply tweaking seems to count too. The word gets progressively worse the more you tweak.
For anyone intending to have changes and wrap change management around them it would be good to have the benefits and the business case rock solid tight before venturing into the change process. With that diligent pre work you can substitute the synonym, enhancements.
Transformation
Like the transformer toys that take the same Latin root this signifies to tired stakeholders the process of turning something that has form and function into something else. I have watched those toys switch forms myself and wondered how hard it is to switch them back?
Transformation has a secondary meaning to stakeholders- tons of change (see previous bad word).
Best bet with this kind of huge change. Place less emphasis on the transmutation of the current organization and more emphasis on a new future state that might include a few pieces from the past.
Change Management
I wish I was kidding.
This comes from the “you can’t manage change, only people perspective”.
It helps here to show that change is a process of people and business. The management piece is illustrating and guiding that process and blend.
While my kids will not let me use dumb and stupid I realize they are words that work in certain, adult, situations. The same can be said for Change, Transformation and Change Management- it has a lot to do with planning, communication and delivery.
Technorati Tags: change communications, resistance to change, stakeholders
Things begin to pick up for business (less fear, willingness to spend hoarded cash, new competition appearing from garages- not sure which is the cause, but things are picking up in the change arena) and the revisiting begins. Change anew. Except some of it is the programs that were cancelled a year or more ago. How is restarted change different?
History Doubled
The ability to move change forward is always effected by previous attempts (bad or good). To start something that did not finish on the first attempt is potentially tempting fate. If, in our current case, the economy can be blamed for the earlier stop, starting again just slots right into the business environment.
Care must be taken with communication for a restart because, excuses aside, a mistake was made. Sure, as a leader you do not think so – it was all part of the plan. The problem is to stakeholders it must not have been a good plan. Now the Pandora’s box of trust, faith in leaders (which is a specific kind of trust), I told you so’s and the appearance of mishaps is opened.
Address the double history issue with crystal clear as transparent as possible communications. You might want to recheck and possibly rethink the new plan- the last thing you want is two historical mishaps.
Second Chances
Everybody believes in second chances. You have one if you are restarting change. Some of your work may already be completed. Redo work can be done better. Mistakes can be corrected. And acknowledged. Which leads me to the “be careful”.
By necessity taking this second chance is assuming empathy. There is a difference between restarted change and any other- the empathy has to flow from the stakeholders to the leaders. Empathy should (I always hesitate to use this word, but it fits now) go from leaders to stakeholders, that is a given. To go both ways sets up an interesting dynamic. Maybe I should have said an effective dynamic because the core of relationships connected to accomplishments is shared empathy. Give it a double dose on your second chance restarts.
Rebuilding is impressive
Taking what you have, envisioning something different and better and then layering in additions is smart change. As with any remodel matching the old lines to the new can be difficult. Because that is an obvious component of rebuilding/remodeling everyone is impressed when the result is seamless. With your restart this is an opening for a view of the end state that includes overcoming and tackling obstacles.
For that to make sense as an explanation there must be honesty, transparency and camaraderie around stops and starts and the end states they can create.
With that you can restart and rebuild at the same time.
Technorati Tags: change communications, change failure, change management, End State, engagement, Garrett Gitchell, resistance to change, stakeholders, vision to work
High level change management has two or three spots in the timeline/process where I always feel it is essential to call a conference room late-morning-into-lunch meeting to wrap our arms around the big picture. I do not take forcing the invite lightly. One of the reasons I can be bold enough to take a chunk of first or second horizontal executive time is that an interesting thing always happens…something new, something potentially “viral” (in a good way), something specific to the client organization appears. It appears in the form of a new word (languaging at its core) a diagram, chart or picture.
One of those meetings (4 hours long) at a Fortune 50 firm created all of the above- a chart, a diagram and a picture. It was a picture that bore a striking resemblance to a camel. “It looks like we drew a camel”, I said on our sandwich break… that connection, that potential analogy, that unique to that organization picture, was all it took to begin creating a model. You might call that the second step of languaging.
The third step, now I hear a year later, after an all hands presentation by the client, was a wildfire spread of the analogy to different parts of the company around the world. Which has since morphed into functional and regional interpretations of the camel analogy, chart, picture and model.
It is nice that a camel can go a long time without water, can stand extremes of heat and has a face that takes a little time getting used to. All great languaging leverage points. Those up and down humps are also helpful to illustrate passage of time, levels of effort and participation. Carry that a little farther and you could say certain parts of the camel are better at carrying a heavy load (and certain camels are stronger).
This type of analogy languaging has happened a couple of time with clients… Maybe we should count them as deliverables…
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, C level, change communications, change excercise, change management consultant, Communications, Executive, executive communications, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, Insights, Value, vision to work
Adopting the beliefs, perspective and behaviors of the tribe is of questionable advantage for an external consultant. Advantage is a carefully chosen word because I think integrating into a clients culture- at the level of member of the tribe- is chosen for a gain different than the one the consultant was hired for (Think revenue and the next engagement). Going native effects two things-
Objectivity and the People side of the change equation.
What is doesn’t do, IMHO, is strengthen the business side of the equation- the one that satisfies objectives and guides the path to the end state.
Objectivity
The closer an external gets to the patterns of the tribe (connecting to people and individuals is, I think, different and more helpful) the more decisions and recommendations are going to be based on people and patterns that may have been root problems to start with. Subjective (which builds with tribal membership) is gray, indecisive and non-committal (great for dialogue, not so great for accomplishing business objectives).
The People side of Change
Addressing the human element of change is crucial. But remember the goal of change management is the end state. Becoming one with the customs of the people in the organization may extend that goal. On the people side there is an intricate balance between acknowledgment and realistic “playing by the rules” (both formal and informal) and addressing root causes to bypass symptoms on the way to effect.
The higher the horizontal and spread of the change the more detrimental going native can be to results. I find myself in a constant negotiation process in my head between the needs of multiple tribes, human nature and symptoms versus core behaviors. I basically deal equally with the Chief Tribe and the Indian Tribe. Participating as a guest preserves the right balance.
Technorati Tags: change awareness, change management consultant, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
Change Management is often a race to stay ahead of the setting sun. By setting sun I mean demise of the initiative itself. I am running out of fingers to count the times I have been involved in or seen the complete stop of major initiatives (most in the 7 figure + range).
Here are a few reasons why this happens-
- Change Management is added too late
- Strategy does not connect well to resources and motivation
- Strategy is not present, misguided or unrealistic
- Timeline is unrealistic
- The people are unrealistic (yes sometimes there is TRUE resistance- see bullet one through four)
Change Management is often seen as a training, communications, speed the project along discipline. I cringe when I see something like “provide training, communications and accelerate project implementation”. Cars accelerate.
As a result of this perspective (one seen in both practitioner and client I might add) change fits at the beginning of the implementation of the change, somewhere a little after all of the planning, all of the designing , all of the making of the task lists. Which is exactly where it falls 99% of the time (my stat). And one step behind the setting sun.
To make this worse, and effectively make Change Management even less relevant, the practice of CM is used as an overlap to other processes. The perfect example is placing the machinations (word chosen wisely-CM deals with people) of CM under the watch of the project manager. Or in the hierarchy having CM report to HR, or IT, or Finance or any function.
In both these cases, perspective and placement, CM will be well behind the setting sun on every initiative.
Unrealistic timelines. I will leave the timing of tasks to a project management/operations discussion. It is the timing of the coordination of people and their human nature luggage that is important here. With the change process weaved into the whole from true beginning to end state there is actually is the possibility of speeding up timelines. But that will only work when the original timelines included that human nature component. Which we know rarely happens because CM is added well after that planning stage.
Strategy.
This is corporate strategy I am referring to not the strategy of implementation. Many consultants and their clients confuse the plan for implementation as strategy. Use “strategic implementation” and you might be able to language and separate the two meanings. They are different and stakeholders are not only well aware of the difference, but confused when leadership and engagement leaders do not know or see the difference.
Corporate strategy is the vision of the leaders, the possibilities in the current (or near future) environment, the direction of the organization as a whole, the business objectives on a high level to get to profit, success and sustainability. Every one of your initiatives should, and most certainly does, connect in some way with at least one part of this definition. Why is it then that there is no thread or glue to make this connection?
If you have operational change management in your organization you might actually be able to have a component that looks like the current approach to change that makes sense and works. If you understand, as a leader, that change management is about the connection of work to vision and vice versa then you will provide the avenues for that connection to happen. If you understand that the moment of the “idea” for an initiative is about the time Change Management needs to be added…
…you just might get a polar version of a day where the day is long and the sun sets right at the end state.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CCM, CEO, Change, change awareness, Change Design, change failure, change management, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, Context, corporate change management, corporate strategy, End State, Examples, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
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.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CCM, CEO, change awareness, Change Design, change failure, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, Context, corporate strategy, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, Insights, organizational change, Value, vision, vision to work
Quick wins is another term that keeps spinning around.
For change management a quick win would establish trust and confidence between those leading the change and those who will be changed. That is the people side.
On the business side the quick win would fill in an objective that is an important piece of the overall change process. It would provide a pat on the back for all that is connected to the end state and the change in general.
Anything that clarifies the process, further describes the end state and or creates new positive energy and collaboration can be considered a quick win.
What no contrarian?
As with many things that have to do with people doing “business” throwing a label on things can often be detrimental. Quick wins can create a sour taste because the definition of win can be different for each stakeholder (see “pat on the back” above- people love to pat their own backs…). Quick wins with a sour taste in relation to change management are often a pat on the back for how well the change team did something. Nice for camaraderie, but not necessarily a tie to the whole and the end state.
Quick wins can be a little like potato chips. Think one will satisfy you? Soon the whole bag is gone and you are too sluggish to accomplish anything. For CM that looks like a focus on quick highs and short term perspective. This is not a short term process. If you can get your quick wins to slot into the longer process and be smart about how you leverage the actual term (keeping in mind historical change approaches that view the term from a shallow perspective and the tweaked history of the term in general) they can be an option in building the change process.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, change awareness, change communications, vision to work
Sometimes very little.
I have had three potential clients (admittedly the current environment has forced almost everything into task based mode and these were middle of the organization people- a question like this is usually not asked by an executive with a true budget) ask in the last month some version of, “what survey tool to you use and how do you leverage surveys?”. I should probably throw out a name they know (because a lot of money was spent on marketing) and then carry on with my change management explanation, educating and movement toward contracting.
It is just oh so hard to do this when client money and value is on the line.
If, and that should be capitalized, a survey makes sense, which one, despite the “soap-boxing’, does not really matter. What matters is the data that comes out the other end. That data must tie to business objectives and the specific change(s). The use of the survey is the ability to gauge approach, timing and implementation as a result of the numbers.
What does not make sense is to waste precious potential change management budget dollars on readiness surveys and questionnaires to help the team figure out how to proceed (or to pad the pockets of an intrusive middle agent).
I can easily meet with five or more individuals a day. Given the two weeks or more it would take to put together a survey and collate the date I will have talked, personally, to 50 people. But that survey may take the time of three or four people. So now the number approaches 200. In my experience many who were not part of the 160 come my way with their own questions- that also provide valuable information and perspective. If those 160 are chosen wisely the information (because in change management info. is usually much more powerful than data unless a gate keeper needs convincing) is much more usable than survey data. A brown bag lunch or two to replace the time it takes to put together the survey or contract with a sub can add 40 – 50 more. Now we are well into the 300’s of people touched personally.
We have not even touched the potential for ill will from a survey. Words disconnected from leadership even in questions on a page can have negative detrimental effects…
With huge initiatives, I admit, it is sometimes valuable to use a survey. I lean toward designing my own specific to the engagement. A survey can hit a lot of stakeholders all at once with a tallying delay. It can grease the motivation skids in that it shows interest if delivered correctly ( a different kind of genuine marketing). It can create great pictures and graphs that make everyone see how they were included. So the power of a survey is really for a sense of inclusion.
The reason for use however is usually because the survey, and typically a specific tool, is heavily pushed. I have learned that anything heavily pushed has a dollar stream attached to it. I have few of those dollar streams with my own work because I want to represent the client and the end state/business objectives with nothing in the way.
If you are a client follow my mantra in change management of always asking why. This is one of those areas where the question may have to be asked in multiple forms from the people and business side to justify cost and reward.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, change awareness, change management strategy, Communications, engagement, stakeholders, vision to work
|
|
