|
|
A Change Practitioner will need to steer, guide, lead and prod for a variety of situations. While human nature can be consistent cultures and processes within organizations are distinct. Which of course is the result of human nature. Intuition, experience and empathy may carry the day for knowing people in general, but to get to the specifics and the “distinct” of one organizations takes an initial list of questions and to-do’s.
-
How do they communicate
-
What are the horizontal connections (if any)
-
Where is leverage the strongest
-
How weak or strong is the PMO
-
What is the history of change
-
What is the understanding of change management
-
At the individual level what are the disconnects in the organization
Turning these bullets into actual questions to individual stakeholders will create a list of helpful and not so helpful in terms of the way the organization exchanges, moves and learns. In fact the last bullet usually reveals the first (but feels too much like a resistance/negative approach to be a start for new conversations). What you hope for as a leader/change agent are clean lines of communication horizontally, vertically and circular; enough breakage of a silo structure that the change work can cross functions; leverage in the right spots as catalysts rather than roadblocks; an effective, aware and capable PMO; as little bad baggage as possible and understanding/willingness on the part of the stakeholders.
You can see how the short list gets long fast and now have some more data on why most organizations need Change Management.
Taken completely out of context (barely) from a post within a LinkedIn group.
Nor did he have the internet, global communications, virtual teams, contracted work groups or the need to constantly keep up with the business environment. What he did have is structure, hierarchy and unwritten rules about participating and unemployment (for not doing so).
As a leader why do I need change management?
You don’t.
If… you have the capacity in your organization to come up with ideas, that lead to vision, that illustrate end states, that tie to the energy, motivation and skill set of those you hired. Oh, and collaboration across function, culture, geography and virtual space, lack of internal politics that slow the fulfillment of goals. Of course you will also need to fully understand the mood and trust within your organization along with what you have for competencies, leadership and capacity.
You could delegate some of this out to the PM, you could pass the responsibility down to your junior leaders, you could partner with HR, you could force feed work in order to get it done. If you did all this passing and pushing where would you be…back in his day.
Think that works?
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.
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 )
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.
When it exists is like a sponge. It pulls in until it fills to capacity.
This is something to consider, leverage and acknowledge for change management. It is not necessarily something to be fed and nurtured.
What is Loyalty in the context of change management?
Loyalty to the cause
This is a connection to the core purpose of the change that creates interest, motivation and action. A technologist may quickly be on board for an IT implementation (or not of course). Someone sitting in HR may jump right on board for a human capital initiative. A senior executive may pencil in more and more free space on their calendar for dialogue and exchange for a program that touches their function.
Loyalty to the company
This is the version we think of when we see the word loyalty tied to work or workplace. It might infer staying power in terms of retention, it might mean atmosphere and culture, it might mean the tenacity with which people stick to goals/strategy/plans. It might even be the level of evangelism from participants extending outside internal operations-social marketing.
Ongoing connection
Loyalty that is truly strong is ongoing. Loyalty has a distinct time connection and a measure of strength over that time frame. Ideally it is increasing strength-measured differently for each individual and/or stakeholder.
Which brings me to the sponge.
Loyalty has both a pull and a maximum limit. The expectation of loyalty in change management often creates that maximum limit quickly. This is the common pattern of project/change management- shove something in, assume loyalty and get-…wait for it…Resistance.
Thankfully loyalty has a rosy side too. The pull. The more things (our things being change) make sense and connect in some way the smoother and more powerful the pull. Loyalty tends to spread easily once the pull begins. Charismatic leaders can help with the pull- someone has to communicate the “make sense”. The pull tends to produce evangelists who can increase the speed and, at times, the capacity of the pull.
When it is strong loyalty should be acknowledged within the change process. The acknowledgement can be kudos in communications, illustrations of commitment, examples of time saved through dedication and collaboration, etc. This is the right approach for feeding/nurturing/leveraging loyalty.
What does not always makes sense is rewarding loyalty.
Think of the expectations airline miles have created. Think of the backlash about blackout periods. Rewarded loyalty has a scale of expectations that increases quickly which decreases loyalty if not continuously fed.
Loyalty’s dark side is group think, retention of the lowest common denominator and potentially reduced innovation. In terms of change management the dark side is models and approaches that make incorrect assumptions or are based on internal best practices. The way we do it, a form of cultural loyalty, may not always be the most efficient or effective (effective adding a human capital component).
Keeping all this in mind, change management can build loyalty by rewarding skill and showing how that skill connects to end states and the health of the change entity. If compensation structures do the same bonuses can be added that tie to change participation.
Kudos always work. They work because they are after the fact and specific. Incentives are the opposite, before and general. They do not work so well because of the expectations they create.
When it comes to loyalty, specifically reward rather than generally encourage.
What is the role of the C level leader for change management initiatives?
It depends on the specific C role and the size, scope and breadth of the initiative. This “it depends” list is a good way to look at our question because it follows the pattern that change tends to go through-and the order.
Size
This is a measure of how big this thing is going to be. The scale can be in terms of time (as in months to multi-year), number of people that will need to be involved or the budget needed.
Scope
Hopefully an area that is looked at and analyzed early on -strategically. After that it is the amount of resources, times and money that will be needed in each track or stream of the roll out. This area just gets bigger and bigger in its creep if the “hopefully” sentence is left out or skimmed over. It is this area that CM can bring cost controls (I know not a typical role for CM- but one that makes sense).
Breadth
When this initiative, especially if it is transformative, begins to pour like water over the organization how far will the edge of the water go? Uncomfortable as it may be for linear, straight line, 2 D, time based thinkers (and doers) the water goes in every direction. The change process is a little like a funnel turned upside down. Early on the flow is controlled. As time goes on and the initiative gets closer to the end state more and more stakeholders get touched. The funnel opens up and the spread gets bigger. How big that spread will be is breadth. “Will be” is a signal that this must be looked at from the very beginning planning stages. In keeping with my change management philosophy you might want to read these paragraphs backwards.
CEO
If the change is a transformation (culture, process, structure or all) the CEO is the owner. If you have not read my previous posts (or Alan Weiss, my tweak of definition comes from his writings) the owner pays for it and is the figurehead. Although admittedly the budgets usually come from the first and second horizontal (fortune 100) so the CEO might be a half owner.
Her/his role is to absolutely insure that this change makes sense. It can make sense based on data, based on emotion or based on reason/intuition. As a communicator the breadth category is the most important. Breadth can be a lead in for the other three. Please ,not the other way around- size and scope leading to breadth, that is just ugly (but common) creep.
As the organizational leader I think the CEO also had a previous role- or has one before this big change- to create an entity in the organization to orchestrate change. With that there is the ability to apply so the CEO can lead and communicate.
For all of the smaller less transformative initiatives the CEO can serve as the introducer of the change with an early communication, can be inserted into the process to boost something along or provide clarification and can serve as a motivator (I mean that in a helpful rather than coercive way- if you are using coercion you either have the wrong model or you missed the “make sense” step).
CFO
For the big changes scope will be the hands on role. That is where the money is spent (or saved). There is a version of the “makes sense” assumption here. Every expense is in competition with another. It benefits all change for the CFO to understand and be proficient in communicating that constantly balancing scale. The CFO must understand and learn to be comfortable with the 15% CM line item. A random number maybe- I have seen 10% constantly run into problems and 20% fairly quickly taken away, so 15 is our compromise. With a CMG (change management group) those costs can be spread operationally.
The CFO may also have leadership, figurehead responsibilities if the engagement is within their function (or reporting structure- here is an interesting article for CFO’s and CIO’s on the ownership of IT http://tinyurl.com/2ajrl3q take the CM part with a grain of salt though).
CIO
Hands on for the technology layer of the change. A leader if the change is strictly an implementation. There is a fine line here though. All changes in technology involve behavioral or skill change, so the CIO quickly becomes a figurehead for the “people side”. Did I say figurehead? I might have meant scapegoat. In order to avoid the passing of the buck for blame it helps for the CIO to hone their empathy skills and their knowledge of the changes individuals must go through if you “move the key on the keyboard”. Following that key to its new spot is Adoption and in that area the CIO is usually the owner.
As with all C level roles there is a responsibility for the make-sense-communications. Thanks to the CFO’s interpretation of budgeting and the CEO’s explanations of strategy to work connections the new tool should slot right in-correct?
COO
Is the right hand person to the CEO (and possibly in succession) so read section one first.
For the big initiatives size is their category. What kinds of resources will be needed? Because the COO is responsible for corralling all resources in an efficient way. All is both the change and day to day operations. This is typically a mud wrestling match with the dirtiest (and I don’t mean finishing covered with mud) winning. The COO is combination referee and parent at the mall. Their role has a lot of explaining and a lot of measurement of value and results.
The CMG is one way to keep that balanced and to support the responsibilities of this C role. CM can be paid for with the many operational savings it uncovers. It can be leveraged by the COO to create collaboration and surface new ideas and approaches. While it does not always seem apparent that surfaced innovation can either save or make money for the future the COO has their hands on possibility every day. It is their role in the change process to pull that out.
CLO
First deserves more credit (and more leverage).
They are responsible for making all of the other C level responsibilities work and get better.
For a transformation their immediate role is to provide the training and development needed to pave the way for the change. As the leader of that area they have a responsibility to illustrate the spot stakeholders are in. The “spot” is time, place, capability and gaps in knowledge and ability. Their challenge is to fill in the gaps for the change readiness (here is a good use of this term- it is one of the change words I do not like).
The CLO may also be the owner if the transformation falls within their function or influence. But most learning initiatives quickly or soon will become something the rest of the organization can use. Ownership may scale up in those instances.
All C level
Your executive summary is that the C level is heavily responsible for front loading change. The next person in line, the next landing of the buck, is an implementer. Implementation must have structure, approach, reasonable method and a lot of make sense. They do not have the power, influence or dollars to make that happen. Expecting them to is not fair and is, I think, the main reason for change “failure”.
And as a comical note Wikipedia lists 46, I am not kidding, different C level roles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_title.
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.
 Just the fact the there is a role for CM on any given initiative, program or project is a plus. It sends a signal to participants that the transition from one thing to another is complicated and difficult enough to warrant sheparding by a person rather than just through communication or project management.
As a Conduit
A CM resource external, internal or a designated leader will consider it their responsibility to make connections that are obvious, but for some reason are not happening. Leader to stakeholder and vice-versa, function to function, peer to peer across functions, internal to external resources to name a few.
As a Leadership Guide
This an extension of the conduit plus. It is difficult in organizations to get valuable feedback as a leader and to give the same as an employee/stakeholder. The CM often falls into the role of coach/mentor/advisor between the leading and the hands on work.
As a Communication Lever
In the same third party sense the communication for a change process can weave in operational interaction in a safer and more approachable manner than mandates and barked orders.
As an Organizational Assessment avenue
The process of gathering information for the end state descriptions reveals a wealth of data about the organization. Companies rarely have an avenue for objectively evaluating their people, structure and process. CM (with a good practitioner) shines a light in all three areas.
As an Operational Builder
If Change Management is an entity within the organization all of the above combined with the regular change management activities and expectations can address efficiency, collaboration, cross functional accountability and overall connection between strategy and implementation.
- 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…
|
|
