|
|
The Economist Intelligence Unit has given us an up to date view of change management- “Leaders of Change- Companies prepare for a stronger future”.
A little background:
The study was authored by Paul Kielstra. It survey 288 executives, 42 % C-level or above from North America (44%), Western Europe (40%) and Latin America (16%). 75% of respondents came from organizations with revenue of US$1bn or above. A nice mix to give us some change statistics.
Their introduction:
“Although companies remain, as always, cost conscious, they are putting much more emphasis on growing market share and preparing for the future.
Similarly, organisations are increasingly devoting their attention to the sales and marketing functions.
This further reflects the shift in emphasis towards growth and the future and away from cost cutting.
Apparently, executives are leaving the preoccupations of surviving the downturn behind.
Yet companies are still, all too often, unable to execute change. The responsibility inevitably resides
with their leaders.
Excellent! Statistics to back up my comments for the last six months or so.
Driving forces for change:
Cost pressures topped the list averaging 50% with customer demand, regulation and market share following. Growth types of change- mergers, market opportunity and reducing complexity (nimble is crucial for fast change) were significantly lower percentages. The good news is that last years study topped 66% for cost reduction- that is improvement in the right direction.
An interesting note here- Wouldn’t “reducing complexity”, not cost cutting but creating nimbleness, help for any change? Adding a Corporate Change Management entity would fall in that category. What better time than now to do that to be ready for next year’s study that has growth initiatives topping the charts…
Which area of the corporation is getting the change initiatives?
Sales wins with 41% followed by Supply chain/Procurement (26%), IT (24%) and Finance (20%). HR, Customer Service and others fall farther down the list. Sales and marketing, that would be a first step toward growth- a good sign. Of course I am not happy to see procurement so high on the list- that will turn out to have been a problem when everyone switches to growth mode (the environment as a result is not conducive to external input that can help fuel the right growth).
The “company as a whole”, Asset optimization and “Senior management” barely make the chart. No investment in infrastructure or people. That is a trend that will need to change for growth and prosperity that filters throughout the organization.
Change in Resource Focus:
There is a trend in this study toward altered focus on resource spending. Forty seven percent of the respondents have environments where change focus was either increased or greatly increased. A VERY significant set of number, good ones, is the measure of executive participation with important change. Sixty three percent of the respondents fell in the increased or greatly increased categories.
Did 37% of the executives in the polled organizations think the status quo was doing just fine? Or, in fairness, maybe they were in no position to change anything.
Success?
So were these change initiatives successful (keeping in mind we are asking what might be the foxes in the hen house…)?
73% think that at least half of their change was successful. So much for the bandied about 70% failure rate.
Bottleneck Employees
Who is responsible for the 27% failure (and the extra percentage built into the 1/2, 3/4 responses)?
Those poor middle managers always taking the heat for everything. I admit I am a little guilty as charged for jumping on that band wagon. At times the criticism is warranted, but these numbers look like it is piled on- especially since only five percent of the respondents were willing to take the heat. Humility, refreshing, I want them for clients.
Cause of Failure
This is always revealing and this survey did not disappoint.
Lack of clearly defined milestones and objectives “won” this one easily (35% C-suite and 28% non C-suite, but still in the senior leader category). Insufficient funding, poor communication and employee resistance (the light in the tunnel) were far behind.
First look at the chart and think about who the survey respondents were. It looks as if the C-suite is pointing fingers at middle management again. What if we gave the same survey to those same senior managers, or better yet the other stakeholders? Think the numbers would tweak a little? This chart illustrates the reason why we have change management in the first place. And the questions play into the framing.
Thanks to the framing of the survey (science can be manipulated) there are no questions about descriptions of end states. Or a nice question about the presence of the owner. I am guessing these respondents think “senior management” are the implementers (not them). And insufficient funding only gets 3 and 7 percent in a nasty down economy. I find that almost impossible to believe.
But in all fairness this is good stuff. It is the right mix for the survey. It is owners answering the questions. The questions are revealing as are the answers (the top line above reveals a project management focus toward change, even at the highest levels).
This study from the Economist givess timely statistics for change. Here is to hoping the percentages sweep in favor of growth and large scale transformation for the next version.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, CEO, change failure, corporate change management, corporate strategy, Executive, organizational change, statistics, vision to work
- Be very clear before you start the change journey of the responsibilities of leadership- you will likely have an owner and an implementer. Partner together and pass that type of relationship down the chain. Change fails when no one is responsible and no one is accountable.
- If you are the leader be careful of the you and them perspective- stakeholders see right through a leader who is not personally connected to the change.
- Value expertise- use it, call it out and connect the relationship of talent to successful change. But don’t fake it (see point two).
- Be clear about the differences between project management and change management- PM accomplishes tasks and manages risk, CM works to connect the work of people to end states. Don’t put big picture people on the little stuff and don’t throw the big picture stuff at those managing risk.
- Double your time and dollar estimates- I mean that figuratively (although if you want to take it literally and act on that you might have some pretty successful change- by all measures). Don’t fall prey to any hucksters out there who promises to speed your time to change. It might work for the first round, but the mess will be ugly the second time.
- Change can be, and is when it is thought out and makes sense, positive- be careful of negative, resistance fighting, risk managing approaches to change. There may be times when you have to put the hammer down… that’s different.
- Enjoy the journey- you are, after all, asking that of others.
Leadership, perspective, expertise, CM and PM partnership, time, money, positive and negative must all be looked at before change can begin. Address these seven pointers and you will have a good start toward a successful change effort.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CEO, change excercise, change management strategy, Executive, organizational change, PMO, vision to work
A while back I did a tongue in cheek look at models.
Thanks to all the certification machines out there and the unemployment rate there is a flood of new, inexperienced (you can tell by the questions they ask in Forums) “change management practitioners”. It seems the first thing they want to know about are the different models to use. Big indicator that they really do not understand Change Management.
Because there are a lot of horns out there tooting as loud as possible- one that insists Change Management falls within project management (recipe for failure for anything big). I have never been one to blow my horn loud and for the sole purpose that someone listens to it (or spends money to hear it again). I shout when something does not make sense and no one seems to be saying anything (even though it is right in front of their eyes and they agree).
Well isn’t that a little like true Change Management? It is about calling out things so you can get to make sense end states. PS most of the models out there, on purpose, by design, do not do that. Most of the clients out there LOVE those kind of models because they really do not need to change much. You are not that kind of client/leader or practitioner, right?
So here (the actual model with hyperlink explanations for each piece) is the Vision to Work model:
I created it as a representation of End State Focus and Makes Sense Change. I did not, like many modelers, create a model that illustrated how change was being approached already. It amazes me how many models are created to support status quo- pretending otherwise.
Call me out marketers, but I have never touted the model specifically- the perspective yes, maybe the approach, but not the model itself. Leaders, hesitate when a consultant you are looking at whips out their model and pushes the deliverables within- they are playing to your status quo. (You do not want that, remember?)
Here is another funny thing about models. They seem to be frameworks to teach someone how to practice change management. Senior practitioners often end up creating similar paperwork (say stakeholders assessments), but it is more record keeping of the things they have found rather than a map for what to look for.
Prosci is the perfect example. A mid level practitioner could follow the model to a tee and get to the end (and I don’t mean END STATE) befuddled, confused and surprised at the failure. Anyone can sit down and draw a picture, but few of those creations end up at Christies. Anyone can go through the steps for change management; few can get to the things and people that must change for end state attainment.
The Change Management Arena has gotten a little scary this year. The emphasis on models and the strange evangelism (by, judging from their profiles, new and junior practitioners) for the companies that market the hardest is not a good sign for big transformational change. If you are a senior leader looking for a consultant be wary and ask yourself if you and your organization are REALLY capable of the change you seek. If not go with the models and the cheap rate. If so be informed and talk to those practitioners who speak with a softer voice.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, C level, CEO, Change Design, change failure, Change Strategy, External Consultant, Fees, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, vision to work
Rather than, “how would my mechanic do this” – the I need it by this afternoon kind of change, think how NASA might approach this. I have no idea how NASA approaches the things they do, but I am guessing it is not by quickly (urgently?) taking a step before they talk or plan. Yet that is often how organizational change works- let’s just start, the energy will bring the stragglers along with us.
If you were the leader in charge of getting to Mars how might you go about it?
- What is Mars?
- What would be the reason to be there?
- Once there, what would that look like?
- How far away is it?
- In general how would you get there?
- What kind of special talent, approach or perspective is that going to take?
- Now divide the big-huge-long-term into pieces.
- Now put task within the pieces.
- Now look to see that is missing and needed.
What is Mars?
This thing you are going to needs to be defined. That way your explanations can be pinned to something. You can come up with what it is physically, with what it is metaphorically and with what it means (likely an emotional definition).
What would be the reason to be there?
Why go to Mars? Is this for scientific discovery? Is it to see if Mars might be habitable? Is it for the achievement? It could be all of the above. It will be important to know why and be able to justify and explain this end state.
Once there, what would that look like?
Having explained why, what exactly might this look like, being on Mars? Would this just be a probe? A person? People? Something else? Being able to think about what it would feel like and mean to actually get to that end state, then carry on, is important. This does not have to be pie in the sky dreaming. It can be based on what the end state means in terms of advancement, in corporate terms maybe profit, distinctness from the status quo etc.
How far away is it?
Not necessarily exact distance (corporate change is not going to have a “miles [or kilometers] equivalent) but how big is this? Dealing with the small is impossible until you understand the big. Sure many will just want to get started on some details, after all this is going to take a long time we need to start WORKING! Someone has to understand the big in order to break it up into parts. In our NASA scenario part of the measurement of distance might be by generations.
Imagine working on something at NASA that you will never see actually happen, because you will not live that long.
In general how would you get there?
There is the distance, there is the scale and there is the journey. What will carry you on this journey? In our NASA case it is some kind of spaceship (likely a huge change initiative just for that part). For a company that may be an internal vs. external discussion, a method discussion, a leadership discussion or a high level competency talk (don’t get into the weeds of specifics now!- you will never get to “Mars” if you do).
What kind of special talent, approach or perspective is that going to take?
So, in general, what is it going to take in terms of expertise to get to that end state? Will there be skill building? Will those skills need to be stacked up to create missing competencies? Are you, and your stakeholders, going to need to see things differently in some way? Will that mean you have to do things differently? Are you prepared to do those things together when necessary?
I have to give the external plug- do you really think you can see this on you own? What do you actually see when you look in the mirror?
Now divide the big-huge-long-term into pieces.
This “Mars trip” will have pieces- a spaceship, equipment, scientific tools (likely some not invented yet), fuel, operations, overhead etc. Those pieces likely fall into a general time frame with overlaps. How much of the work can be shared so as not to be duplicated. In the Mars case do you need duplication for safety?
For corporate change this may fall into your preferred approach to change- some project management framework. That may be fine, but jump back to the last paragraph first and look in the mirror, or ask your external consultant to interpret the reflection. It may be time to come up with a different set of big pieces.
Now put task within the pieces.
Either way you will then need to break these pieces down into smaller more manageable parts. Notice I have said nothing about time or dates. Please tell me you did not announce, “We will get to Mars on blank day”. Say good bye to your date right now- let alone your end state.
Now look to see what is missing and needed.
If you made it to this point you did a good job of imaging what that end state might be, even looking past it, then working back to the present. Mars is a great example because it is hard to make a current versus future approach for this journey. A lot of change is creating, inventing and growing NOT replacing.
What are you missing? As you looked at those big pieces and thought about some smaller pieces did you see that you might not have the talent to get the work done?
Can you build your own organization to fill those gaps? After all this is a really long journey, there is time to develop while some of the doable work happens.
While you are working on that competency filling, can you overlap your efforts and strengthen your everyday operations at the same time? Generations from now someone might want to go to Pluto or a place we have not found yet. You can make both the present and the future better by thinking both bigger and smaller.
As you look at your organizational change think how NASA might approach this. Big, expansive thought translated into small detail pieces, passing through the stages and the people needed to get there. Big back to small so the small can be shown to connect to the big.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, vision, vision to work
 CM must manage the use of time, the meaning of timing and the announcement of times. Time for change management is not just a moment, a day, a week etc. for something to happen. Time is also process. Time is procedure. Time is transition. Time is flexible.
Use of Time
For your organizational change do you use time like the PMO does-likely down to the half day if not hour? Do you use time like your sales team does- by quarter and year? Do you use time like NASA does- I’m kidding, just had to run the full spectrum.
What you want to do is all of the above. Use NASA time (or something more reasonable within a generation) for long term end states. Use that sense of time for your transformational initiative (singular, please don’t tell me you are trying to do more than one at a time). Use the sales version for programs. Use the PMO version for contained projects (I say that because some projects, like IT and HR, need to spread cross functionally and need more than just the PMO) and within all project, programs, initiatives and transformation.
Keep time on your side by only setting in stone those deadline dates you know you can meet. Because your use and perspective of time says something to your stakeholders. Trust and time go together.
Meaning of Time
Time has different meaning in different contexts. The more definitive, at 10:00 on this day this will happen, the more task oriented. But also less flexible. Help your stakeholders to understand when time aligns with task, when it aligns with process and when it aligns with the future. Get them all to connect and the meaning of time can be flexible and definitive.
Announcement of Times
As soon as you announce time, unless you have pursued times meaning within your organization, you effect the change process. If that date is well thought out, backed by gathering of expertise, supported by a budget and realistic (keeping in mind people and the way they jump in and jump out of change) then announcements of time can be powerful. Live up to the date, live up to the promise and, even better, do it together as a talented organization and you will arrive at end states. And be able to do it again the next time.
Time can be about tasks, time can be about operations, time can be about long term strategy and end states. Know the difference. Communicate the difference. Leverage the difference so that when you do pick exact times your pick of time sticks. Do so a few times and you will give yourself the flexibility to have time frames. Your change will arrive just in time.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Context, organizational change, strategy
What would it look like if change, started from scratch, was done right?
- Find a senior change management consultant for a trusted advisor.
- Answer why.
- Connect to expertise.
- Engage.
- Divide the journey into parts.
- Manage time.
- Cycle your change process.
Trusted Advisor
If you are in the “pre-scratch” spot now is the time to bring in a senior external consultant. My pick, obviously, is an independent consultant ( you can always add other options later, the independent choice will give you both control and flexibility- not so with other options).
Why
Because most organizations dictate it the business case will begin to form quickly. That’s great, it is one side of the why equation. The tough side from a change standpoint is the why for people, especially for individuals and groups. Get that explanation and description clear early (and adapt as you gather feedback from stakeholders).
Expertise
Change requires people.
Helping them to participate, while often difficult, is not the most important thing about the people component.
Expertise is.
I coach young kids soccer; they love it, but we do not always win. I consult for change; people are led to engage, but they do not always know what they are doing.
From scratch determine if you will have the right people for the tasks at hand. The scratch viewpoint of this is a high level, in general picture. As you work back from the end state you will have a better idea of exactly what skills and competencies will be needed on your change journey.
As you move forward (to move backward to move forward again) always keep expertise in mind. People like to know how good they are at their work. People like to be acknowledged for their talent. This is one of the reasons people participate (I think the most powerful of the list). Use expertise in a human way to get to your business goals.
Engage
Once you have a broad view of expertise in relation to your change you can engage. Most change initiatives do not engage very well or at all early enough. There is fear of transparency and it clouds approach. Trust yourself. Do so and your stakeholders will trust you and so the change.
Now engage to gather perspective, information and gauge energy (call it “readiness” if you have to) as the foundation for your end state(s) description. Expertise should be your guiding banner (not some false inclusion approach). You value the talent you have; you engage with that talent to get to mutual goals. A great start for change from scratch.
Phases
Don’t let your PMO and project managers get their hands on the change too quickly. Doing do eliminates the chance to have change from scratch. They do a fantastic job, but, remember that expertise thing? Their expertise is in chunking up the business side of the journey and then assigning tasks (actually they tend to be detail oriented and make the tasks first then chunk them into groups). As with all competencies use in the right place at the right time.
Phases help the PMO organize and are the best time to partner CM and PM. Layering of CM within PM by phase works well (as long as you have paid attention to our previous categories and that trusted advisor is there).
Manage Time
Your PMO and PM’s will focus intensely on time and timing. From scratch change requires a different perspective of time. When you mention a moment in time, say an adoption date or for IT the date you turn off the legacy system, things change (a different meaning for the word change). “When” for change should not be addressed officially until you have things lined up clearly (and really understand your stakeholders and the end state). IT engagements especially fall apart if the drop dead date is announced too soon (having a drop dead date is not a good idea in the first place).
From scratch change must manage the use of time, the meaning of timing and the announcement of times. Be realistic about timing. Be flexible about longer time frame pieces of your change. Much like promises, do not force yourself into admitting you made a mistake. And do not encourage mistakes by forcing timing.
Change is Ongoing
And ubiquitous and always going to happen and inevitable. So why not leverage current change for that next one in the future. I don’t mean laying down a turn key process (there is no such thing no matter what that other firm may be telling you). Set up patterns in this change of exchange, interaction, use of expertise and communication that can be replicated and, ideally, culturized for positive effect now and into the future. Make some change management aspects operational.
Change Management from scratch rarely, if ever, happens. We would be living in a different business environment if it did (and I honestly thing, especially in this environment the companies that figure out how to do this will leave their competitors standing still when things pick up).
To start from scratch for change requires a trusted advisor placed contracting with the owner, realistic and transparent why descriptions, connection with expertise, engagement, understanding of time and culturization of the positives. If, as a senior leader, you can figure out how to do this…
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, CEO, change management, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
One of the talking points for Change Management is (“thanks” to Kotter) “Sense of Urgency”.
It is better to focus on Sense of Purpose.
A sense of purpose has a goal in mind (ideally an end state). A sense of purpose can smoothly integrate others. A sense of purpose has a controlled forward movement. Contrast that to urgency which tends to have too many short term goals, wraps up others in a confusion of running around and moves sideways more than forward.
How would you go about building a sense of purpose?
- Define end states
- Include development
- Integrate incentives
- Relay stories
- Support with facts if possible
- Acknowledge Emotion
Define end states
Purpose builds over time. A sense of purpose moves toward something on the horizon. The horizon shortens (or at least the distance is understood) when the end state is clear. The process of defining the end state, translating that into the viewers of multiple stakeholders and then planning backwards the steps that need to be filled in is the first exercise for building a sense of purpose for change.
Include development
Long journeys are perfect for growth, skill building and development. Likely that previously defined end state requires one or all. Including development in the plan and implementation builds both individuals and the organization- it adds extra purpose above and beyond the change. What better time to develop talent than in the process of growing toward a future? In fact that real world connection often means the difference between simply training (building skills) to developing (applying those skills to varying situations).
Integrate incentives
It is possible to have purpose without incentive or reward (teachers and non- profit workers come to mind). It could be argued that purpose is stronger and more efficient when rewarded. The key or change is to have incentive truly support both the change and the individual. That order is important. Many times incentives are figured out at an individual level and then do not connect to the change. Stakeholders see right through that- especially if you have made the mistake of rewarding status quo rather than competency and task building for end states.
Relay stories
Purpose works well when shared. It also works better when improvement from something that happened before seems possible. Stories convey that. “This is what happened” illustrations help for strategy and tactics for change.
And don’t forget the stories that happen during the change. Many initiatives are years long- lots of stories to build purpose. Because of the length many initiatives rotate stakeholders, and many tasks and procedures get repeated. Stories can help make round two even more successful.
Support with facts if possible
Some develop purpose only after seeing facts that show possibility. Some like facts to illustrate they made the right decisions. Some like facts to be able to see the end state in a realistic and empirical way. Gather and use facts to build purpose. Facts don’t lie… unless they are out of context. Context is crucial for sense of purpose. Show the connection between your facts and the end state and make that connection irrefutable.
Acknowledge Emotion
And be ready for those who like to trust, who like emotion, who believe in gut feelings or who are too impatient for the time it takes to gather facts (or do not trust the gatherers).
Acknowledge resistance. And then address it to build the strongest sense of purpose you will ever get (converts are usually fanatics- that is good in our case). Acknowledge and feed excitement and energy. Positive feels light; negative feels heavy. Heavy change rarely has a sense of purpose.
Aim to convert resistance to positive energy. Feed excitement (just be careful of that urgency thing- that is a different kind of excitement).
Sense of purpose leads individuals to work together to get to end states. It is much more effective than sense of urgency and when managed well builds the organization for the next change (as well as increasing the effectiveness of the current initiative).
Technorati Tags: business objectives, C level, change management strategy, corporate change management, Garrett Gitchell, resistance to change, stakeholders, vision to work
Tactics definition: any mode of procedure for gaining advantage or success. Dictionary.com
Following these tips will DEFINITLY give you an advantage. Your competitors are not paying attention to this:
- Decrease the distance between leaders and individual stakeholders
- Base steps toward the end state on expertise
- Use change to build competencies
- Adapt your PM system to reflect the end state
- Spend more time talking and less time writing things down
Leadership distance
Any procedure, system or approach that connects stakeholders more directly with leadership will give you an advantage. A regular update from executives in a newsletter or on the project website is the easiest, lowest level tactic. The same regularity in person, or at least with an interactive virtual session is second. Most effective is presence, in person, throughout the initiative in a variety of places for a variety of reasons (connecting the change to the end state and operations).
Expertise
Think expertise for all of the steps of your plan.
Each task in a plan requires a person with skill. Leverage, build and acknowledge both skill and the use of skill (competency) in any way you can.
Competencies
Same as expertise, but the extension- knowing and using capability and capacity. Competencies, and the individuals that carry them, need to be tactically spread onto the change management chessboard. Since business is ultimately a competition you may need tactical moves to protect lack of competency. Enter external consultants for helping you figure that out and contractors to temporarily add missing competencies.
Performance Management
Your performance management system is the record of how well you are doing with tactics. Each suggestions/goal/reward connects with an overall strategy. Those little tactical pieces, developed and accomplished by individuals, should be recorded, monitored and adjusted through the PM system.
Look in hindsight back when you finish change. Did your PM roadmaps build to the end state or just reinforce a subjective status quo?
Dialogue/Communication
Tactical Change Management relies heavily on templates and deliverables (and staying parked in a cubicle filling them out). Change tactics (whether with that form of CM or as part of a broader strategy) should focus on spending the right amount of time in person connecting, explaining end states to and guiding stakeholders. You are looking to address all of the learning styles and to have people hear, see, read, and, in a perfect world, feel and touch your end state, your plan and the steps to get there.
Gaining advantage with change and successfully getting to end states requires a long series of tactical moves, determined through a strong strategic plan with an early and throughout change process. Decreasing the distance between leaders and stakeholders; using expertise; building competencies; keeping track of and rewarding those skills and communicating in multiple ways as close to in person as possible will give you advantage and speed your change.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, CEO, change awareness, change communications, Change Design, change management consultant, change management strategy, Garrett Gitchell, stakeholders, vision to work
Tactical Change Management layers over project management and the organizations project process. It is heavily focused on adoption, timing and a command and control approach.
Some characteristics of Tactical CM (TCM):
- Leadership comes from middle management
- Communication cascades
- External resources are contracted
- Usually templated
Leadership comes from middle management
TCM is led by middle managers. Leadership visibility is rarely above Director level. This happens for two reasons, one positive and one detrimental to change.
The first is that the change is operational, technical or functionally focused and it makes sense to have leadership visibility come from the hands-on leaders. For many large organizations those leaders also hold some or all of the purse strings for certain projects so there is a lower level ownership component.
The second is that the change is organic. Organic change bubbles up from inside the organization. Sometimes it pulls senior leaders along, sometimes it just happens without them. Change like this can happen, but it is a long haul. Success does not typically come from a tactical approach. But that is what these types of leaders are comfortable with, and to be fair, that is what they are compensated for.
Communication cascades
Lacking full senior leadership support and visibility mid level leaders must pass responsibility to others. That comes with a command and control, cascading approach for both communication and leadership. A core project team creates (comms., training etc.) and then passes to the next level for implementation.
This has the advantage of leveraging lack of resources (TCM is always under budgeted). The disadvantage is that each successive cascade weakens the original content, training or message. The weakening typically is a status quo cascade as each level tailors things to their own preferences effectively avoiding non-tactical change management.
External resources are contracted
This is command and control- avoid risk. It is managed by project managers and leaders who operate under that approach. A fantastic perspective and process for functional and operational projects (clearly defined with no major human element risks). In keeping with this approach external resources (especially change management consultants) are sourced and expected to be contractors- basically employees. Change management does not work well when those changing are also managing the change with no external input. Non- consultative change which TCM is typically runs into problems.
Anything that questions the PMO approach is a risk. PM’s are best at controlling risk. Change management practitioners, especially consultative ones, are a major risk for PM’s. Of course taking this approach is a risk of its own (see Strategic Change Management upcoming post).
Usually templated
TCM falls prey (I know a harsh word, but I have seen the results) to “turn key” templated change methods. For projects, again with little people risk, this can work fantastic (and is very helpful with understaffing). Templated methods used on larger, broader initiatives and programs miss many pieces of the change management equation. They also illuminate the command and control approach which is seen by stakeholders as cold and corporate (not the kind of perspective you want from the people you are trying to control).
Templated approaches usually push “certified” consultants. The certification is, of course, a double down on the original approach which skimps on true CM resources. The best change management consultants (best being both most successful adoption percentages and adding to the strength of the organization with each change) are not certified and only take those “courses” if the client insists on it. That is not to say that those “certified” cannot be good consultants just that the certification does not make a good consultant and is not necessary to be a good consultant (an advanced degree and experience is a different story).
Pros:
Controlled, regimented process- again good for situations where a project focus makes sense.
Frees senior leaders to work on strategy- well managed tactical change with developing consultants helping while senior consultants work with senior leaders on larger strategic change can be a perfect match and set of partnerships.
Measurable and manageable- is great for projects, but one outlier person can make a mess of the numbers quickly (understanding and avoiding this is the forte of change management practitioners, but they have to have high level exposure to be effective).
Cons:
Internally focused- reinforces status quo. Very few changes benefit from this.
Misses ownership component- even small change moves slower when senior leadership is absent or hands off.
Is really just project management- external resources are so controlled and monitored that external influence is squelched. This reduces risk at a low level and increases it at a broader level.
Tactical change is a measured, controlled process that typically follows templated methods. It is comfortable for middle managers, pushes few buttons and can be very effective for functional project level change. It runs into big problems when it is used for change that is broad, transformational and cross functional.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Buyer, CEO, change failure, change tactics, External Consultant, tactical change management
Trusted advisor explored one part of the equation.
Trust takes at least two people.
The trust summary for change management consulting is not complete without exploring the role of Trusted Partner.
First disclosure: I feel like I have had some harsh critique of leadership and leaders lately. The economy and the selfish patterns in society the last 15+ years have bred these problems. I honestly think people are inherently good and can be trusted. Environments that make it easy to be selfish and greedy quickly wear down the potential for trust.
Trusted Partner
A trusted partner must understand that business works when individuals have a chance to use their talent and skills; individuals enjoy work when business leverages their capability for gain (which creates profit for all). Change is a people/business partnership. Too much emphasis on either side of this pairing will erode trust.
When I am evaluating clients my list of trust includes:
- Their visibility in the organization
- Their track record
- Their demeanor
- Their spot on the org. chart
Their visibility in the organization
What does the potential partner think those in the organization see and say about them? If what I hear from stakeholders matches closely with what the leader says trust is likely.
Do they like to take charge and get credit for it? Do they transfer that perspective to the management of others? A leader, I think, should have balance of confidence and humility. Confidence helps with decision making; humility is the foundation for empowerment.
Their track record
What have they done in terms of leadership and how much of that was change (and how big was the change)? An aspect of trust for me personally is how well someone learns. To be a Trusted Partner a client must be able to stretch, accept certain things and try others. Without that I cannot be a Trusted Advisor- more like a trusted contractor (lower case intentional).
They do not have to bring a successful track record to the table. They rose to where they are, there is a reason for that. Mistakes and/or things that could be called not successful can still accomplish a lot on the people side. There is also lessons to be learned for the business side.
A leader ready to look at the past bad and good and learn from it for the future can be trusted (and can be consulted to and partnered with).
Their demeanor
Personality is probably impossible to change. Demeanor has some flex. Willingness to understand and listen to others in order to be successful and improve is a quality for trust.
If a potential client has a demeanor that I am comfortable with trust begins early. For me respect can overweigh a lot of things, demeanor being one of them. If this leader has done things for business and for people that are commendable demeanor becomes secondary. In fact if they have been strong for one side of the equation and are asking for help with the other we have an excellent start for a trusted partnership.
Their spot on the org. chart
Trust, for me, here has to do with the leverage and power they really have compared to where they think they are (or should be) and where they ACTUALLY are on the org. chart.
If they are being overpowered for their position that says something (not always bad- those I have considered excellent people leaders are often overpowered by the heavy business side/greedy competition). If they are not leveraging their spot on the chart that says something else.
If they can be shown where they are, where they should be and where others see them and then look to improve that I personally can trust them.
Those are my little consulting measures. What about our previous trust list from this perspective? My gauge there has as much to do with trust about the initiative as it does about the person I might contract/partner with.
The list of bullets from the trust post:
- integrity
- strength
- ability
- surety
- charisma
- presence
Integrity
Will they be willing to do things after consultation that they will have to stand by? Are they bold enough and willing to take the risk of being checked on whether they do what they say they will?
Strength
They have to have some kind of strength to have risen to where they are. What is it? Does that strength fit the environment/end state they are going to work toward? Are they strong enough to adapt? It can often be important to gauge what they see as strong in others. Again does that line up with the new scenario off in the future?
Ability
Is all this even possible? Do they have the ability and have they built that in others? If not trust will have to be there to absorb the back and forth of what needs to be built and what does not. If there ability is short they may not understand what is needed. A Trusted Partner would be able to make the leap of understanding necessary.
Surety
If they have no connection to the money and most of the time if they are not the owner then they cannot be a Trusted Partner as least for the larger scale change. They can be at a scaled down tactical level though.
If they are the owner like our trust explanation, have they provided enough surety for this change to be possible? We are talking about currency at this point, but what about the currency of their own? How much of themselves are they willing to invest (in both the change and the trusted partnership)?
Charisma
Will people follow this person? Because they trust them or blindly?
Many a founder CEO has a bit of a cult following. The loyal lemmings tend to follow them over the cliff when the organization gets to big for the founders ability. Still, not too worry, the lemmings will follow just as quickly when the leader builds his/her ability and constructs change that makes sense.
And charisma is not really necessary for trust or change anyway (it is just seasoning).
Presence
Are they visible in the organization?
It is hard to trust someone who hides out. It is hard to trust someone who passes the buck. It is hard to trust someone who barks orders from the darkness.
But that too can change. There are many quiet leaders out there. I often trust that presence can be felt through others. Sometimes that is the way it should be for the change to happen.
Trust is a two way street when it comes to consulting. On one side is the Advisor on the other the Partner. Trust is the spot in the middle where they meet. A trusted partnership happens when both parties can go back and forth across the line.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, change management consultant, corporate change management, engagement, Executive, External Consultant, organizational change, vision to work
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
