|
|
Two words this time around. Do they mean the same thing?
Here are my external definitions:
Corporate-
Anything that is owned, managed and delivered from the highest levels in the organization. Corporate crosses above functions. And you can have a corporate function itself that works for everyone (like HR).
Centralized-
Pulling resources together as a unit to save cost and overlap. Programs and initiatives that have cultural components are often centralized. Procurement is typically centralized (a big movement in the last couple of years- I wanted to write fad instead of movement…).
But what do these two words mean for employees and stakeholders? This always surprises me- as an external who owns nothing and so looks for the smartest solutions.
Corporate means dictated policy and rules.
Centralized means controlled by a corporate entity (in their minds often to the detriment of functions- what an external might call a silo).
This perspective continues to puzzle me as I work to update and dig deeper into my corporate change management entity suggestions.
Stakeholders balk at anything that is corporate and centralized. For change that visibility and ability to cross fertilize is powerful glue for a longer time period than most functions operate under. Strengthening of operations and connections on one initiative builds a foundation for the next.
In many ways that is what operations should be doing. In many ways that is what HR was expected to do (but never given the leverage or visibility to get right). Since this rarely happens there is a trust deficit. Corporate and centralized are the labels for those deficits. In the minds of stakeholders if something carries those labels it cannot and will not work.
I can see why.
The first thing organizations seem to do when they think of setting up a change entity is labeling it a “Center of Excellence”. That would be fantastic if they meant this morphing group of external and internal people was helping to coalesce all the expertise of the organization. Not so. Center of Excellence ends up being just another function- one with a confusing purpose and reason.
If you are a leader being asked to think of this because of an organic movement within your organization, or better, because you yourself know there needs to be something in your organization that look deeper into your transformations (and even, potentially, small changes) think hard about our two words. It might be a good exercise for you to ask questions of your employees and potential stakeholders about corporate versus function and central versus disparate.
You might have a trust equation to build before you can do the “implementation” piece of your change.
Centralized and corporate (and worse corporate centralization) are words with hidden meanings for stakeholders. Consider those stakeholder perspective as you think about long term transformational change (and your organizations second round in the distant future).
Technorati Tags: CCM, CEO, change awareness, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, organizational change, resistance to change, vision to work
There is a cycle of give and take, supply and demand, within change management that is rarely addressed and often missed. I think it starts with underlying assumptions about what a leader is and what a worker does. It mirrors, in ways, the ongoing grand argument in US politics about “job creators”. What drives the economy demand or capital? Consumers or Business Owners? Do things “trickle down” or filter up (or rise up) because of energetic demand?
I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.
That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.
Nick Hanauer, Entrepreneur (founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. in 2007)
Our change parallel:
The “job creators” for change are the owners (interesting it could be the very same people in both examples…). Demand is the energy of the stakeholders (and willingness, and perspective). By themselves through the power of their role leaders will not make change happen- they are not change accomplishers.
What will lead to the accomplishment of change is a feedback loop between those who will do the hands on work and those who envision the change. The more connection there is between stakeholders and their work to leaders and their vision the smoother goes the realization of change.
Back to our comparison:
“Trickle down” when it comes to change has been a complete failure. High paid leader (the “rich” person for this version of the analogy) gets grand idea, passes it off to the next level and waits for the spoils to spread through the organization. I can tell you from my experience whatever is supposed to have trickled down is considerably spoiled by the time it gets to the end stakeholder.
I will admit organic change has not done much better- arguably “trickle up”.
What does work is the virtuous cycle of clarity, explanation, application and energy that comes with leaders understanding demand, in the change context, and doing what they can to feed and encourage that energy and focus.
Leaders, owners of change, understand that you are not change creators- facilitators, messengers, inspirerors maybe, but not creators/accomplishers. Pay attention to that virtuous cycle that comes when stakeholders understand change, can apply it to themselves in some way and can place themselves in context with the work and the end state.
Technorati Tags: C level, CEO, change awareness, Change Strategy, engagement, Executive, job creators, leader, stakeholders, trickle down, trickle up, vision to work
I have seen this before, but on a recent engagement it was painfully obvious. Big change has an underlying assumption of mini-ownership of process, tasks and work effort.
Here is how the process usually plays out:
- A “sponsor” is picked either before the business case is built or after (usually from the initial team in that case).
- The sponsor is expected to reach out into functions for leadership.
- Those leaders with find, pick, nominate or coerce an initial team of “champions”.
- Those champions will be the in-person deliverers of work, task and message
- Finally the end stakeholders (“line” in some cases) will own the change and make it happen.
I have inserted a few quotation marks which means there are problems…
Sponsor ownership
The sponsor is not the owner. To have them own the change is a problem. They will not have the same level of respect as the true owner (the person responsible for the budget of the change- yes it is always one person). While likely still a high level senior leader they will not have the breadth of reach that the owner does (nor the level of influence). That can make big change tough. Big change does not work well when permission must be granted, over and over again. If you have to ask permission you do not own.
The sponsor must have a mini level of ownership, compared to the owner. Without the owner reinforcing that change will run into problems, up to and including failure.
Passing everything quickly to a sponsor by virtue of your status quo approach, passing the buck or just naiveté is a mini-ownership problem first step.
Mid level leadership
Which typically gets repeated with a pass to mid level leadership (usually Directors within functions). Mid level leadership most definitely owns the translation of the idea into work. They own an important messaging component. But if they are receiving a second pass of the baton (with no lead given from the first runner) they are starting off with an ownership/leadership disadvantage.
In my experience some of these leaders ought to be given MORE ownership because they get it, their stakeholders know and see that and things will happen if they do not have to ask permission (or do things different than the previous baton passers). There are as many leaders, in my experience, at this level, that should not be given any more ownership than is needed to make a connection to their stakeholders.
Best quote from one of these people in my career, “Having been around here for 30 years I ought to know how things are done.” Ha. And having been around here for 30 days (or maybe 30 minutes) I can tell you how things SHOULD not be done anymore…
Champions
These are the people itching to further their career. Give them anything to own and they will take it. Whether or not the first person to coin this term did this on purpose I’m not sure, but it would have been a good move if you thought change was about urgency and energy. The people who get the title champion have both. And they can often create both in others.
Or not.
You can’t just say someone is a champion of anything. Think sports. The equivalent corporate- champion-crowning is the 5 year old soccer team where EVERYONE gets a trophy, because they are ALL champions.
If you have a scenario where the owner gets it and is present, mid level leaders can have the end state make sense from their functional perspective (and that translates well into participation in a bigger picture effort) then champions are just awesome to have- especially the ones who can own and lead to pull in the last level of stakeholder.
End stakeholders
Who are ultimately the most important for change. They are the ones who will be doing something different- likely over and over and over (like typing). They must be able to own the connection of work to end state. What they do must be significant in some way. And the rewards for participation, in addition to the knowledge of connection, must be real.
There is a lot of buzz about “ownership of change” this year. It gets quotes because stakeholder ownership is a very contrived term. There are just too many times when the level of ownership on the line, at the and, where the hands on work happens, cannot be much. Looking at the organization from that vantage point I can see how hard it would be to feel ownership to anything. Roll out change as a passage of mini-ownership through multiple layers and you will likely have push back at the end.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, C level, change awareness, Change Design, change failure, change management strategy, organizational change, resistance to change, stakeholders
One of the things that you will not likely see on the “70% Change Failure List” is an underlying Us and Them perspective. I see this on almost all engagements, this grouping propensity seems to be one of those “Human Nature” things.
Us = Leadership or the project team or the change management consultants (in those rare cases where there is more than one) or a functional group.
Them = Everyone else or line stakeholders or the Resistors or that other function or a vague competitor (that one might be OK for building camaraderie against a common foe).
What’s wrong with Us and Them viewpoints?
- Command and control
- Exclusion
- Transparency
- Trust
- Responsibility
Command and control
The most common pairing is Leaders and Stakeholders (I almost put “vs.”). Leadership has either set up or gotten used to telling people what to do. Since that command is passed to the next level to implement “people” never has to be an actual person. Stakeholders see the disconnect.
Because of the disconnect everything must be controlled to a different degree than it would have to be if everyone was in this together. The more you control the more a “them” perspective becomes obvious. Soon it will be leaders VS. stakeholders.
Exclusion
This can come with all of our pairs, often not on purpose just in the interest of expediency. Functions exclude other functions. The change team can exclude many (they should know better!). Leaders exclude on purpose to reduce competition. Individuals exclude to retain power.
Exclusion in general is the bane of change.
Exclusion makes things confusing, unclear and can be a first step toward fear and gossip. Change does not go well with gossip and fear.
Transparency
Transparency can kill fear and stifle gossip. The opposite, which is what you get when us and them is woven into your approach, feeds fear. Complete openness is never possible in business. A higher level than exists in most organizations is. Reveal what you can at the right time. The way you reveal information, facts, data and directions can show that everyone is working together toward similar end states.
Because if you don’t you lose trust.
Without trust you will have a hard time getting the necessary work done. Signal a “them” perspective, watch now you will see this EVERYWHERE, and you have eliminated the chance for full trust. If they are them then you, already, do not trust. Why should they?
Responsibility
When there is an us and them perspective responsibility gets passed from one group to the next, or one person to the next. Often the us group is doing the thinking and the planning while the them group is supposed to just listen to orders and then work their you-know-what’s off.
This creates a “you-think-you-know-everything” view. If separation exists between stakeholder and some other group it will feel condescending to those tasked with the work.
If the shelves aren’t stocked or the cash registers aren’t manned, or the data is not entered or the code is not written or the customer is not cared for, there is no business and so there will be no change. Those most responsible, really, are the line stakeholders- they are most often the “them”.
It is very easy to fall into an Us and Them perspective. Working teams do that with stakeholders, leaders do it with “followers” and change practitioners do it with those they are supposed to be working with. Watch yourself and look closely at your model. Do you have us and them embedded to the point where it may feel like us VS. them to some?
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, C level, CEO, change awareness, engagement, Executive, resistance to change, stakeholders
What exactly do we see when we look in the mirror? If someone stood next to us would they see the same thing?
Senior leader, what if you stood next to a stakeholder and looked in the mirror? Same reflection?
What if it is the change standing in front of the mirror? How many different reflections would that be?
You contract with a senior consultant for a different interpretation of the reflections that come your way. You build that relationship to trusted advisor to help adjust your interpretation of your reflection.
A good consultant will know what too say, which reflection differences to address and when.
A good change management consultant placed high with the owner knows which reflections to encourage for you and for the change in general. They sometimes and often conflict. You work with the external so you will address that conflict. Acknowledging and addressing conflict is a core competency for leadership and one difficult to manage alone.
That consultant will be able to see things broad and into the future that for you, with your narrow field of vision, will not appear in that mirror. They have likely gone through many interpretations of different reflections and honed their skill in explaining and addressing disparity. Odds are also pretty good they have done that for themselves (and even have their own trusted advisor).
The greatest disparity I see for this metaphor is the stakeholder reflection vs. the leaders image, both for the leader and for the change. Leaders have high expectations and often get away with pushing their own reflection. One of the biggest roadblocks to change is this disconnect between what employees see (and feel) and what the senior leaders version is. Humility is important here. Contracting with an external is your first humble move. It will pay off when everyone looks back in the mirror later.
What you see in the mirror and the image others receive is not likely the same. An external consultant can help line them up so leaders and stakeholders can work together.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, Buyer, C level, CEO, change awareness, change failure, change management consultant, Executive, Garrett Gitchell, stakeholders
Certainly a change appropriate word.
1. the act of taking or receiving something offered.
2. favorable reception; approval; favor.
3. the act of assenting or believing: acceptance of a theory.
4. the fact or state of being accepted or acceptable.
Dictionary.com
Acceptance and change:
- THE change must be accepted at some level
- Stakeholders must accept the change (and be accepting)
- Leaders and peers must accept each other
- All of the underlying structure must be accepted
THE change must be accepted at some level
Obviously or not much will happen. Admittedly there are some changes which have little acceptance (or acceptance an elite few- elite is a nice way of putting it) like reduction in force, some mergers, downsizing, the sale of a company etc. Acceptance is either bought, leveraged, asked for (hoped for?) or gained through make sense end states.
But someone, even if only a few has to accept to move change forward.
Stakeholders must accept the change (and be accepting)
Good change, the kind that leads to other good change must be accepted by the stakeholders. Acceptance may come right after awareness or further along the timeline as more information is communicated (and the end state possibilities become clearer).
It is much easier if the stakeholders are accepting of change, either by mentality or because of previous successes. That is one reason why I push clients to understand the significance of this change and this approach for future endeavors.
From the stakeholder perspective though there is the big nasty, “I do not accept this at all, but I have no choice (my family needs to eat…)”. I suppose you can accept that nothing is ever going to go right as you are doing the tasks you are told to do.
Leaders and peers must accept each other
For good change a contract forms, or is created on purpose, between leaders and stakeholders and between peers. They accept each other for talent and they accept differences. When you have that you can have collaboration that leads to work effort, you can have mediation that finds solutions and you can have compromise. You can also have risk that gets balanced- maybe this time we do things your way, next mine (all in one basket carries risk).
All of the underlying structure must be accepted
This is a big one that often does not happen with big change. Because so little time is spent up front getting ready- the packing and repacking for the journey- there is often not much acceptance for the approach. Or there is the previous negative, “we have no choice” acceptance.
The underlying process, historic structure, new structure and communications have a strong effect on change. When I am asked what causes change to fail my answer is always structure first.
Acceptance for change is both the stakeholder side of participation and the comfort level toward the change itself.
Technorati Tags: change awareness, End State, engagement, Garrett Gitchell, stakeholders, vision to work
This is a perfect word for change:
Definition: mental depression or apathy caused by comparison of the actual state of the world with an ideal state
Webster
“As we described the end state to the group we were all overcome with weltschmertz.”
This happens, a lot.
It is the opposite of, “no way you are going to touch my status quo with that change”.
Or something like, “looking at our actual/current state this change seems impossible”.
And my choice would be, “this is big, but it is doable and it makes sense, why do I feel this will be another round of the impossible?”.
Organizations often (and especially now as things pick up a bit in the economy) have lots of people who are ready for change. Some don’t really care what it is, just get something going here. Some would willingly jump on board for certain kinds of change. All have ideas about what should change (those ideas are often more operational than transformational, but think if you put them all together as an initiative how powerful the change would be).
I think (maybe I see through rose colored glasses) that there is more weltschmerz in organizations than change resistance. Many, many times I have met with stakeholders who are fed up with the LACK of change in their organizations. Weltschmerz weighs heavy on them.
Some pointers for “weltschmerzers”:
- Make your ideas known
- Leaders, describe end states realistically and have realistic end states
- Build flexibility into the end state
- Create multiple end states
- Stop thinking people automatically resist
- Make friends with someone in your organization that is practical and pragmatic
Use any avenue possible to clearly illustrate your ideas for change. Careful about going full bore into any organic submissions processes in your organization (weltschmerz black holes).
Leaders, spend much more time developing the end state description from both the business side and the people side. Show that you understand what this means and that a path can be laid to get there.
And show that you are willing to adapt (not concede to the naysayers but adjust the final outcome- conceding is an invitation to weltschmerz). Flexibility is essential for positive energy and participation.
The end state will be different for each person, or at least for each group. Make sure you have all of those descriptions at the ready when you start the project part of the change. Your flexibility may also give you the option of dialed back end states that still provide enough change for the champions.
People do not automatically resist. Weltschmerz is everywhere (although to be fair a resistor turned champion who falls back into their old patterns will have weltschmerz too). Don’t let yourself get caught up in models that talk about long transition processes that go from resistance to acceptance.
For individuals prone to weltschmerz because of their positively rosy view of the future find a friend who skips a little less. Go for practical and pragmatic rather than cynical and negative. I love my first breath in the morning, but have friends who can tell me, “slow down, you keep breathing that fast you are going to pass out!”.
Weltschmerz, unfortunately, is alive and well. Maybe it is time we start paying attention to those people instead of the naysayers of organizational change.
Technorati Tags: change awareness, engagement, resistance to change, stakeholders
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
I snicker a little about this title.
It is good I left the date out- just in case it turns out NEXT year is the year of the Change Agent (at least we know it was not last year).
“The Year of the Change Agent” a post from David Armano gets the first change topic for 2012 spinning from blog to blog, discussion to discussion.
His points:
Seeds of change come from thoughts, behaviors, perception and outcome. Yes.
Why this year is the Year of the Change Agent
- Everyone is restless (in a good way)
- Companies have a TON of money stashed in the vault
- Some intense learning, evaluating and interchange happened last year
- Change Management has left its infancy
- Positive will rule this year
Everyone is restless (in a good way)
Fear (and fear mongering), pining for the past (that never actually happened) and living in a strictly tactical short term world will either kill you or make you strong. For this year I am predicting strong. Bouncing off of negative toward strength tends to make you a little edgy. That becomes urgency at some point- the GOOD kind of urgency that invites and stimulates participation. Get some make sense change going (which gives you permission to call yourself a Change Agent) and you are likely to jump ahead of your competitors.
Companies have a TON of money stashed in the vault
Change ain’t cheap.
Luckily companies have hoarded cash over the last couple of years. Some of that will get released this year. Things will change as a result. And someone will be the agent for that.
Some intense learning, evaluating and interchange happened last year
When you park senior externals and thought leaders in an environment where hustling work likely makes no sense (like a lot of the last two years, unless you downgraded your resume and profile for junior roles) they LEARN. They read, they write, they look at competitors, they draw on every napkin they can find and then they share- first with each other and eventually with clients and customers. This year is that year of sharing.
I can feel the gates opening with discussions that bounce from one place to another. I can see it in thoughtful blog posts (it is nice to not be rushed when writing). I hear it in the way senior consultants frame their explanations.
Some thinking and learning has been happening.
Change Management has left its infancy
I said to a model-oriented-follow-the-steps-exactly consultant the other day that past models and approaches were juvenile and current thought leaders are pulling Change Management into adulthood. The exchange did not go well. Those who have clung to CM status quo (that just seems so weird, how can you be a change agents if you hold onto the past?) are retiring. Maybe not this year, but their numbers are dwindling. Hopefully the young does and bucks keep the good stuff from the past as Change Agents.
Positive will rule this year
Enough of the negative.
Positive people get picked on (been there, live there), but have you noticed they have a lot of friends? Others reach out to them, connect with them, want to partner with them.
What if we just got every third person to be more positive?
Think of the change.
This year is the year of the Change Agent because nobody likes NO change. And certainly everyone dislikes change that goes backwards. We have had a lot of the no change and a good degree of the backward kind (both meanings intended). Now it is time for some people to carry the flag as Agents of Change.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, C level, CEO, change awareness, change management, engagement, External Consultant, strategy, vision to work
“I’m looking for some ideas to encourage our newcomers to be a change agent in the organization ?
We want them to represent the new challenges of the business but also spread a positive and engaged mindset within a group of people resistant to the change.”
HR toolbox question
This is a great question and a scary one.
Would that not first be the responsibility of leadership, this “positive and engaged mindset”?
New employees convincing those parked in the status quo lot to engage? Sounds great, but I can just imagine the possible outcomes…
Here is my response:
Help them to understand upcoming changes in your organization from a “makes sense” perspective:
- Makes sense for them at an individual level
- Makes sense for the business
- Makes sense strategically (long term)
- Makes sense tactically (short term)
Teach them to explain end states, goals and vision (big and small).
If a group is “resisting” then there is something about the change that does not make sense.
That can be true and those people may have a legitimate case.
So your engaged and positive mindset must be good at imagining, thinking positively and most of all comparing.
If you cannot create a comparison that is positive in some way at the individual level then you have forced change- not fair to ask the new people to do the dirty work for that.
Teaching your new employees to be change agents to extend the reach of leadership and add a positive and engaged mindset is a fantastic idea. Just make sure your leaders are helping with the teaching and guidance and are visibly present for the potential backlash or wave of participative energy.
Technorati Tags: C level, change awareness, Communications, engagement, new employees, stakeholders, vision, vision to work
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
