|
|
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 )
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CCM, CEO, change awareness, change failure, change management, change management consultant, End State, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, Insights, resistance to change, vision to work
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.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CCM, CEO, change awareness, change management, vision to work
 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.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, CCM, change awareness, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, Value, vision to work
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.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, C level, CCM, CEO, change awareness, change failure, change management consultant, End State, engagement, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, resistance to change, stakeholders, vision to work
Change Management is often a race to stay ahead of the setting sun. By setting sun I mean demise of the initiative itself. I am running out of fingers to count the times I have been involved in or seen the complete stop of major initiatives (most in the 7 figure + range).
Here are a few reasons why this happens-
- Change Management is added too late
- Strategy does not connect well to resources and motivation
- Strategy is not present, misguided or unrealistic
- Timeline is unrealistic
- The people are unrealistic (yes sometimes there is TRUE resistance- see bullet one through four)
Change Management is often seen as a training, communications, speed the project along discipline. I cringe when I see something like “provide training, communications and accelerate project implementation”. Cars accelerate.
As a result of this perspective (one seen in both practitioner and client I might add) change fits at the beginning of the implementation of the change, somewhere a little after all of the planning, all of the designing , all of the making of the task lists. Which is exactly where it falls 99% of the time (my stat). And one step behind the setting sun.
To make this worse, and effectively make Change Management even less relevant, the practice of CM is used as an overlap to other processes. The perfect example is placing the machinations (word chosen wisely-CM deals with people) of CM under the watch of the project manager. Or in the hierarchy having CM report to HR, or IT, or Finance or any function.
In both these cases, perspective and placement, CM will be well behind the setting sun on every initiative.
Unrealistic timelines. I will leave the timing of tasks to a project management/operations discussion. It is the timing of the coordination of people and their human nature luggage that is important here. With the change process weaved into the whole from true beginning to end state there is actually is the possibility of speeding up timelines. But that will only work when the original timelines included that human nature component. Which we know rarely happens because CM is added well after that planning stage.
Strategy.
This is corporate strategy I am referring to not the strategy of implementation. Many consultants and their clients confuse the plan for implementation as strategy. Use “strategic implementation” and you might be able to language and separate the two meanings. They are different and stakeholders are not only well aware of the difference, but confused when leadership and engagement leaders do not know or see the difference.
Corporate strategy is the vision of the leaders, the possibilities in the current (or near future) environment, the direction of the organization as a whole, the business objectives on a high level to get to profit, success and sustainability. Every one of your initiatives should, and most certainly does, connect in some way with at least one part of this definition. Why is it then that there is no thread or glue to make this connection?
If you have operational change management in your organization you might actually be able to have a component that looks like the current approach to change that makes sense and works. If you understand, as a leader, that change management is about the connection of work to vision and vice versa then you will provide the avenues for that connection to happen. If you understand that the moment of the “idea” for an initiative is about the time Change Management needs to be added…
…you just might get a polar version of a day where the day is long and the sun sets right at the end state.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CCM, CEO, Change, change awareness, Change Design, change failure, change management, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, Context, corporate change management, corporate strategy, End State, Examples, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
In business/life people have to work together to figure out, to make a plan, to accomplish tasks to get to results. I start with that assumption and follow with the assumption that every organization has a process and a structure to get to the results sentence period.
Is this naive? As in having or expressing innocence and credulity.
It turns out the process and the structure are always there. The effectiveness and application of both is the issue. Enter Operational Change Management. Everyone who has anything to do with CM will agree that at its core it is about illustrating a goal, having energy behind the goal, getting participation, following the change path and reaching an end state. Well look at that. Those steps match perfectly with the core operational steps. And I might add look like the hundreds of models I have seen out there.
If it is this simple why is it that it never (yes I chose that word on purpose) happens?
Each of the steps in my first paragraph have major stumbling blocks thanks to people and money. CM done well, at higher levels connects the two. CM that is not done well seems to only address the people (and process). I have yet to see an organization (and few practitioners with the understanding and visibility needed) that can weave this connection.
Maybe it is just too big a task? Maybe it is because organizations do not have anyone, or any entity, responsible for the gluing? Maybe it is because the attempt is either first made internally without external help or done solely on a model from an external influence? Am I naive in thinking it is entirely possible to weave this people, process, money and method web?
I am trying to think of the title for this operational change management person…
VP of the Big Picture?
SVP of PM (people and money)?
Den mother (father)?
Ah, you say, what about VP or Organizational Effectiveness, VP of People, COO? First one is process, second is people, third one is close. CEO… maybe (in a naive perfect world).
I am not going to work toward an answer here. A solution though is running around in my head since we have laid out the root causes… I can just picture being able to pour something out of a can and have it spread over and through the organization. The something would carry languaging, process, structure, collaboration, method and B-12 to all the right places.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CCM, CEO, change awareness, Change Design, change failure, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, Context, corporate strategy, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, Insights, organizational change, Value, vision, vision to work
This is a touchy area I realize. Let’s take a stand-outside big picture look.
+ :
- Energy
- Teamwork
- In some ways more efficient
- Can be powerful for a one shot change
- :
- Threatens leadership (I didn’t say control, that is a different discussion)
- Methodology is organic
- Creates infighting and mini silos (see previous bullet)
- Is a great example of how most change in organizations starts in the middle (of the process and the organization) with no beginning
- It rarely connects to long term strategy
Grass roots organic change can be a great thing for accomplishing a short list of objectives or a small change that has real time constraints. The energy and the shared commitment makes for teamwork which gets work done fast (this is the core scenario for efficient business change). The excitement and commitment pull more people in which can (I emphasize can because there are some negatives here too) increase collaboration horizontally. If it works it can be a great model for the middle, of the change process.
Which is my transition to the potential negatives.
There is a very real threat to the way those responsible and accountable direct work (leadership in general and potentially a threat to a single individual high up). The way the original group goes about the change process will typically do one of two things- either grab a single approach from something/someone well marketed, say a book or grab everything from everywhere and create, well, a “grass roots” methodology. If function 2 happens to be in the same situation with a different change of their own we suddenly have methodology ownership. Grass roots change (and worse change design) is reactionary.
Explaining to do I realize.
From my external viewpoint dropped into the organization at a higher level this is what I see (typically)-
The grass roots energy starts as a reaction to the fact that leadership does not have a handle on change. The organization does not have a guiding entity, group of resources and approach (I like that word better than methodology it seems more human, realistic and practical) to change that ties to strategy, energy and work. That is a vacuum combination for an attitude of doing it yourself.
Grass roots organizational energy, as I see, is typically an illustration of strategy poorly communicated or strategy non-existent (sorry harsh, how about strategy weak). This is in terms of goals to work and demands (still work) to workload. It is amazing how many times the discussions around the grass roots efforts have to do with building a strategy. Makes me wonder who will be, or is, in “charge”…
Change Management has picked up a buzz in the last couple of years. Everyone who is trying to climb internally wants to be the keeper of the design. In one organization I worked with they had no less than six separate “design of change” grass roots groups going (with three big firms and a host of independents suffering a Pavlovian reaction like dogs at a cafe). A little like many businesses competing in a new space- what follows is merger mania with the loudest (not necessarily the best) winning the race.
Tying it all back together to something that works for the organization as a whole- a horizontal approach- is a change initiative in itself (surprisingly or maybe not so, typically started at a grass roots level).
What can you learn as a leader (or a grass roots barnburner if you strayed here) from this fly on the wall post?
Nurture anything that is grass roots. In the process be realistic about why it is happening in the first place. Do not be afraid of a high level group, entity and approach that can manage the connection between you (and your high level leader peers) your stakeholders and strategy fulfilled.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CCM, CEO, change awareness, Change Design, change management consultant, corporate strategy, Garrett Gitchell, strategy, vision to work
Horizontal change must have change management present from the very beginning.
The lack of this is, I think, the major reason initiatives do not get the traction they need. It is frustrating, surprising and disconcerting that almost all of the projects, programs and initiatives I see in organizations have broken this rule.
Here are some reasons-
- Historical approaches
- The insular, siloed nature of organizational work
- Internal power grabbing
- A misunderstanding (ignorance?) about what the process of change is and what it takes to guide it forward
- Organizational design and structure
Let’s take four and five together since those are the responsibility of the first horizontal. It is very hard for anything in business to work in compartments anymore. To do so excludes information, collaboration and innovation. Tasks within a bigger picture can get checked off quicker without external influences, but groups of tasks inevitably rely on input from outside the compartment.
People change, get motivated and participate much quicker and with a higher level of interest when they share work, experience and difficulties with others (especially if they are different in some way so as to provide support from a different angle).
If the structure of the organization and its work does not support this interaction it is difficult to move change anywhere but up and down a vertical plane (certainly not horizontal).
“We collaborate and share all the time, that is not a problem for us”… Really. You think so? Where is this official? (and please do not mention committees, that is a post on its own).
One, two and three have the same core problem- a linear viewpoint that sees the future roll out as a series of steps to be managed and controlled (even if that is for Human Nature). One is a force feeding, two is the building of mini great walls and three looks a little like medieval Kings, Queens and Dukes trying to kill each other off.
Front loading change with knowledgeable strategically focused practitioners can create the horizontal ties needed for success early on. Creating a change group before the big initiatives begin is better.
I can safely say, in my experience at least, 99.9% of initiatives bring in CM people too late. The practioners that have a measure of success under those constraints are truly miracle workers.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, C level, CCM, change awareness, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, corporate change management, engagement, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, strategy, Value, vision to work
To get a better understanding of change that runs horizontal think of a spider web.
At the core of the web is the Corporate Strategy. For this to work we must assume (and a big assumption it is) that the strategy makes sense and can be described, communicated and measured. Radiating out- each with a bigger spread, more influence and more scope, from the core, are projects, programs, initiatives and transformation. The gossamer threads of connection between the four are the functional units of the organization. Spun off from the edge of the web are the external entities (partners, suppliers, customers, the business community etc).
Everything is connected. The sensitive nature of the web means that all movement will be felt, both good and not so.
A change catalyst group made up of internal and external resources rests near the center, near the strategy, near the leaders who control spending, end state visioning and initial leadership. If you were to insist on laying this web over your org. chart the first circle off the hub of the web would be the first horizontal; the precise center, the CEO and the board.
Some observations-
An experienced and intuitive Change practitioner is used to spinning informal versions of this web- they will sense and know the effect of every movement.
Internal consultants rarely are empowered to do so, but are exceptional at managing the web after it is built.
I have not played with this much, but there is no reason this web cannot have a smaller version within functions (or geography or units…?).
While the CCG (or your own crafty acronym) sits near strategy it runs out along all of the threads and circles the web in each of the four change areas, radiating out to make external connections and working with leaders to build and repair connections (see the upper left corner of our diagram).
With dots throughout the web this could actually be THE org. chart.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, C level, CCM, Change Design, change management, change management consultant, Change Strategy, corporate change management, corporate strategy, Examples, Executive, External Consultant, future state, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, PMO, vision to work
The practice of Change Management (this is the “what I have seen” view) is missing a clear perspective of root causes. Admittedly finding the core of organizational difficulties, not just the work of CM practitioners but also day to day operations, is not easy, takes time and requires insight and empathy- a tall order. An order that should be filled though, because symptom chasing solves little, lays a bad path for the next go around and diminishes the ability of CM overall.
Here is an example-
A method focuses on resistance of stakeholders. It lays out a series of communications, surveys, assessments (readiness which strikes me as the silliest of terms if you are automatically expecting resistance) and pretty pictures to represent the data. The data is “interpreted” and then the practitioners follow their pattern of educating on “the change process”, “gaps” (CM methods love to include gaps), transitions (ditto for this) and the five stages (or 8 steps or 10 boxes) that stakeholders must and will adhere to/pass through to accomplish the change. Everything that is gathered and collected illustrates symptoms, results of the change difficulty.
To get anywhere and to truly be successful at the end state causes need to be addressed.
Short of me (and it is truly an uphill battle) I have never seen a practitioner who takes that information gathered (because despite its poor perspective and damaging assumptions does gather some good data- I love data as much as the next practitioner) and uses it to address the root causes that have created the symptoms that produce the “resistance” that live in the house that Jack built…(I couldn’t resist).
Very often (here’s where I would like to have some good data) strategy-poor or lack thereof-is a root cause. Equally powerful is a performance system that runs counter to the objectives of the change. Culture that has not been molded to be innovative or at least receptive to enhancement can be another stifling root cause.
Therefore the first step of any major horizontal, “transformational” (if you like that synonym) change is to look with a magnifying glass (at the first horizontal I might add- might as well start the real change from the get go) at strategy, the performance reward equation and the good and not so of the organizations culture. That view through the looking glass will illuminate symptoms before they even appear sans expensive, time consuming and often detrimental data gathering.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CCM, CEO, Change, change awareness, change communications, Change Design, change excercise, change management, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, Communications, Context, corporate change management, corporate strategy, Executive, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, stakeholders, strategy, vision, vision to work
|
|
