|
|
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 )
Having an external consultant with a broad peer network that you can trust is invaluable. They can break the expensive staffing firm middle man cost, they can refer from specific knowledge of capability and they can find answers and comparisons for your organizational conundrums.
There was a discussion recently on LinkedIn about an internal employee recommending a consultant to his boss. The poster wondered if there should be referral fee; if it was ethical. The answer is no, but look at the arrangements that are made with third parties- one consultant bringing another in under the cover of “sub-contracting”. How come that is ok?
However lucrative I am not comfortable with these arrangements (staffing firms calling themselves consultants being the worst example) because now cash can guide recommendations. How strong is that referral now that money is changing hands?
When it does hasn’t your trusted advisor just turned into a gatekeeper?
Gate keeping can have its advantages if that person truly understands the individuals and the need. Impartial makes the understanding objective. Cash turns the pick of who to recommend into a subjective exercise.
The other way around view, from the consultant’s perspective can get even more confusing. Many consultants feel they “own” the client relationship. Weasel (their word not mine) into that “trusted” arrangement and you have broken the consultant ethical code. Most consultants will expect a fee for that connection (enter the non compete contract- which , thankfully, here in CA is not worth the paper its printed on).
At that exchange your trusted advisor just became a gatekeeper. A gatekeeper in the interests of their own pocket book not your needs.
Ask that key consultant of yours what they think of the ethics of consultant referrals and payment before you give them the trusted advisor label/role.
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.
This http://horizontalchange.com/2009/12/dandelions-in-the-lawn-organic-change-management-design/ most popular post so far must strike a nerve. I don’t have the luxury of knowing who or what type of person links to it, but the numbers most likely make it a range. Interested because you are stuck in a field of organic change? Interested because you are worn down by stagnancy? Think that if the ground swells someone above might pay attention? Or just like it when the pot gets stirred?
So lets just say thanks to the last couple of years we should be happy to have any kind of my kind of urgency- my kind being energy toward work not the chicken-on-its-last-leg-kind. What can be gained from organic change movements in an organization?
Energy
I have learned over the years that while not ideal change management can be dropped in anywhere and provide benefits. Change does not happen without energy, both the hyper and the inner calm kind. If you are a leader and you did not stay ahead of your organic change it is now your responsibility to direct the flow. Just remember energy dissipates-sometimes quickly.
Teamwork
Organic change to continue relies on waves of connection tied to, usually immediate, outcomes. The energy tends to build and attach itself in apparent disconnected areas. Take a breath if you are a leader. Those types of connections are the key to horizontal change (at any level) and to the spider web of change. Beware though group think and the power of new relationships to detach people from business objectives.
Innovation
As soon as someone breaks away, in their mind, from hierarchy and the status quo ideas flood in like rain from above. Rain, floods and water are common insertions in writing to wipe something away. Change at its core must always wipe something away to create a spot for the new. The hard part about innovation and strategy is what to wipe out and what to replace it with. Don’t let the ideas get away and don’t let the ideas get away from you.
Movement
Not the same as energy.
I am surprised and puzzled, often, at how little actually happens in large organizations. What does happen, like politics (because of internal politics) is typically balanced by something else and so nothing really happens. With any organic change pods something is happening. Be refreshed and if it is good go after the balancing mechanisms…uh people. This is a spot where I might even be convinced to use the word resistance…
So what we have here is an exercise in digging up the dandelions, possibly even showing them off in a vase for awhile. What you do not want is to fire up the lawnmower and plow them down like weeds.
One persons weed is another’s salad.
“What are you going to do with the leaders who will not change, that we have not done”, is a paraphrase of a comment that comes from almost all mid level early in the engagement conversations. Of course the reverse from senior leaders replaces leader with person.
Problems here; pay attention.
Change management is not a coercive process to convert individuals. The focus does not need to be on resistance. To direct energy to those who someone assumes will dig in is insulting to that person and should be embarrassing to the person who asked. When someone displays a resistive behavior there is a reason. If you expect to get any change to happen you must plan on addressing those reasons, which, by the way, is the answer to the question, because reasons are never really addressed-it is too painful.
Addressing those reasons open up a spiders web of connections to structure, process, performance measures and internal politics. It is amazing how quickly CM becomes transformational. Or, as is typically the case, more coercive.
My response to the question/comment is something to the effect of “what is your access to senior leadership”. It usually appears tenuous at best. My version of access is influence; theirs if often more about emails answered. If you do not have a collaborative link to leadership then not only will the empathetic approach not work, but neither will the coercive.
As an external the link to the leadership is usually the first move to address their concerns. If they are talking about the same people/person then I see an invitation for a three way collaboration rather than an unscalable wall.
- 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…
Good start. The primary competency of a change management consultant, I am beginning to think, is anticipation. Or ,so you do not confuse this with some fight or flight tendency (also well honed in CM practitioners) intuition might be a better word. We can tell you what will happen as each little action reverberates across the change web. We have probably seen something like this before, people are people and because of that, mistakes are consistently repeated from organization to organization and person to person.
Odds are you are not thinking of:
- How your assumptions effect your approach
- The true effect the change will have on operational efficiency
- The true effect operations will have on the path to the end state
- Importance of placement of change process- usually too low in organization
- Importance of timing of CM- usually too late
- The effect of leadership (different than the “importance of”)
- The power of one (how well is your approach going to acknowledge at the individual level)
- Context and big picture- will a stakeholder know where they fit and where you are in the process?
- Your performance system and its stranglehold on change
- Your leaders and their stranglehold on change (see previous bullet- not necessarily their fault)
- How you are dealing with assessment and measurement
- The difference between training and awareness
- Leveraging transformational initiatives for succession and professional development
- Accountability, responsibility and “ownership”
It is a much longer list, but you get the idea. Or do you?
If you really want to “transform” your organization looking at a much bigger picture is essential.
If your approach is the typical one of firing CM into the fray and hoping for little fall out this is an unnecessary list… until the next time you try to make a big change.
 
and people, which we sometimes forget.
They are often left to make decisions on their own. When those decisions turn out to have positive results they often must jump in celebration alone. Depending on where they currently sit in the organization (and at times where their next seat seems to be) they may just have to guide someone else’s decisions. I can give you some first hand feedback from my service in those roles.
One of my cringe points is the way in which change models and approaches deal with leadership. Just like the change processes those models lead into some of the most important first steps are passed by and left out. I insist with my executive clients in a process that builds end state descriptions for all. Because the leaders will have the responsibility of delivering, deciding and explaining they must understand how their work fits in to the big picture, just like a first day employee.
They become champions of the connection of work and individuals to strategy and a bigger picture not cheerleaders for the new change/thing. Because they are the champions of that connection I would say it is their responsibility to make sure the change makes sense. It is their responsibility to make sure the train does not start until they can articulate the connection. Sorry senior leader client person that is not the role of the CM practitioner. Delivering that articulation and making sure it is heard and understood is. It is also not the role of your direct report (see previous sentence).
We can go on and on about all the things someone should do as a leader, but without the correct assumptions and perspective those fantastic leadership traits fall on dead ears and worse dead hands and change stalls or fails.
So if you are a CM practitioner start to acknowledge executives as stakeholders. If you are inserted into a change process that does not do that stand in front of the train. As a senior leader I hereby give you permission to ponder, clarify and get comfortable with your role as a stakeholder first and leader next.
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…
Look at all the touted, published and marketed change approaches and you will see a pattern. It goes something like this-
Figure it out, find out who needs to be involved with it, get some people to tout it, tell everyone about it, train some people on it, divide it up into phases, push it/force it/coerce it, maybe measure it, get it adopted, make it stick.
Not bad. Many of the things I do with my own approach (which makes sense since my education, experience and exposure is a mix of all of them). Change and projects and tasks and phases have a whole lot of consistency within CM and with other disciplines.
Just one problem.
No one ever really knows what IT is. Or is that no one knows what it IS?
Ask them, from leader to practitioner to stakeholder, and you will get lots of versions, none of which wraps up the whole, has the right focus or leads with the right assumptions. The answers will have a lot to do with implementation. Or they will address people and resistance and difficulty. Or they will focus on the strategy of implementation (which is just a transition into the first sentence). Or they will say, “I do not know…and I am pretty sure the leaders do not either”.
IT is the overall change and everything that means.
The what we do, how we do it and when fall into place after the IT is defined. Really, honestly it does. When the IT is not clear and translated into a description all the effort somehow does not make IT happen.
If you are the ultimate owner of IT (the senior leader with the budget not the person given the role of implementation- see assumptions above) there are multiple versions to the answer, what is IT. Those answers have to do with individuals, roles, time, place, strategy, yes for many implementation, leadership etc. The “have to do with” must connect to a clear picture of the end state.
If you are that leader, see if you can give an IT answer to yourself for your current initiative (no current state, no gap analysis, no future state). A hint- your answer will describe the end, then it may illustrate what that means in terms of effort and participation and if the first two are clear it might have some specifics in terms of work effort.
I can honestly say that on my first round of asking this question of an executive I have never heard an answer that is not How or When. Oops.
|
|
