|
|
I googled change management this morning to see the latest hawked wares and approaches. Since I am a spatial learner and love pictures I chose “images of change” as my first stop.http://tinyurl.com/245t9s5.
Wow.
Could the approaches be more overwhelming? Change itself has a tendency to be the same. As a practitioner wouldn’t you want to make the process easier? Although if I am selling snake oil…
Here are some observations from my image journey-
- Change practitioners adjust their approach to their own perspective (strategic, OD focused, PMO based, Leadership oriented etc)
- Change apparently either revolves around a hub (yes I am guilty with my spider web article-http://issuu.com/garrettgitchell/docs/prosci2010paper), moves along a torturous curve or follows clearly from step to step on a timeline (oh and it could look like an iceberg which is really helpful for the whole fear of change thing)
- You need phases, must have phases
- They are all heavily influenced by historical gurus
- Change is funny (I admit I did like the pictures and cartoons)
After a couple hundred blog posts of my own (maybe I need “the book” to get there) I still can’t quite explain this, but they all feel like they are forcing change into a funnel that magically comes out the other end with a solution. I can picture what an engagement would look like about 3 months in having followed one of these pretty pictures (you can bet the practitioners are inextricably entwined with their own drawings). If I were to ask at that point, “what will this look or feel like when it is all over?”, odds are the answer would not be there (for the practitioner, the leader and especially for the stakeholder).
For that to happen, assumptions, perspective and history usually have to be unraveled, looked at and then rebundled into a change approach that works back from the goal rather than forward to …. can’t resist…. infinity and beyond.
A Change Practitioner will need to steer, guide, lead and prod for a variety of situations. While human nature can be consistent cultures and processes within organizations are distinct. Which of course is the result of human nature. Intuition, experience and empathy may carry the day for knowing people in general, but to get to the specifics and the “distinct” of one organizations takes an initial list of questions and to-do’s.
-
How do they communicate
-
What are the horizontal connections (if any)
-
Where is leverage the strongest
-
How weak or strong is the PMO
-
What is the history of change
-
What is the understanding of change management
-
At the individual level what are the disconnects in the organization
Turning these bullets into actual questions to individual stakeholders will create a list of helpful and not so helpful in terms of the way the organization exchanges, moves and learns. In fact the last bullet usually reveals the first (but feels too much like a resistance/negative approach to be a start for new conversations). What you hope for as a leader/change agent are clean lines of communication horizontally, vertically and circular; enough breakage of a silo structure that the change work can cross functions; leverage in the right spots as catalysts rather than roadblocks; an effective, aware and capable PMO; as little bad baggage as possible and understanding/willingness on the part of the stakeholders.
You can see how the short list gets long fast and now have some more data on why most organizations need Change Management.
I came across a post the other day that said getting stakeholders to use new technology meant addressing their own self interest http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-manager/?p=3976. The post is on the right track. IT implementations are, admittedly, a specific type of change. Every form of change has a “punch a different key” aspect and IT change rarely stays confined in a nice manageable timeline. So lets look at self interest as a general perspective.
Well, of course
Everything we do is in our own self interest. The more we need to change the more our self interest comes into play. We balance need for action against willingness to act. We place ourselves inside the change to see if there is a fit. We watch those around us to see how self interest guides them. We measure action against inaction on a self interest scale.
Just another resistance approach?
Something is just not right with this view of change…it feels negative. “No way are they going to do this… because it is not in their own best interests.” I sense the next statement would be, “we need to show them what not changing will look like”. And then you have another approach based on the assumption that people automatically resist.
Self interest is OK
Better we look at self interest as an automatic thing. Better we use it advantageously. What happens as a result of self interest is usually a symptom of something else- especially if it is inaction. Is the structure of the organization getting in the way? Has history of botched change put up walls? Is the reward system so based on paying off self interest that participating on a larger scale does not make sense? Is self interest dialed in and out based on functional connection (this I have seen in IT do to the specificity of their roles, but they certainly do not own functional connection)? Is corporate strategy weak and/or short term? Do changes make sense (all the way to the individual level)?
Having asked these questions self interest begins to be a barometer of the effectiveness of the organization and its people. It turns out to be a way to, yes, find out reasons to resist. Addressing those valid reasons is a first step for an effective change approach. Self interest just became OK.
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 )
Changes in organizations are approached in two ways. One is to frost the change over existing operations as an add on. The other is to set the change off to the side and “manage it” as a new and separate thing. They both have their pros and cons.
Layered Change
Layering change over existing operations works well when process and structure need to be tweaked or overturned. Layering makes it easier to have transition periods, to train and adapt stakeholders in their true environments and to set up for sustainability and a foothold for the change.
Change that is layered can also be focused on specific areas or functions. That focus can then be repeated. So layering works well with piloting. Because layers by nature build to a whole, each successive wave can gain improvements from the previous attempts. The succession possibility also makes this a way to train internal leaders on the change process.
Layered change is fantastic for year to year smaller changes in operations itself. Every little thing in an organization is a change (if not the organization ceases to exist or ends up existing under another umbrella), but they do not all have to be labeled as initiatives, programs or even projects. Layering from year to year helps with a smooth organizational change process.
Peeled Change
Is change that is guided separate from day to day operations. This means resources tend to be heavily external. Which is smart since peeling necessarily means taking away. That taking away can be a positive for internal resources if it is meant to train and develop. Focusing on the process of change can be a powerful addition to a young leaders arsenal and by extension the organization. Peeled change has little that gets in it way, but it can get in the way, because any change will at some point need to become operational.
Internal resources are not typically employed full time to large change initiatives- even when they are peeled. This creates a push and pull for resource time usually won by operations over change. If the separation and reintegration of those resources is managed by the change process though this can be a great way to keep the change management crisp and efficient.
Too many peels on the ground gets a little slippery though…
As a senior leader it is important to look at your strategic initiatives, programs and projects with an eye toward their connection to day to day operations and culture. The tighter the hold, or put another way, the less transformational, the more layering makes sense. The questions to ask are-
How drastic is this change?
How much do we want the work we do around managing this change to integrate into our fabric?
At what point and in what way do we insert the change (knowing there will be disruption to operations)?
As an external consultant there is always a fine line between honoring “the way we do things here” and pushing for and guiding change. Many, if not most, organizations have a tie to processes, structure and communication that is hard to break. Here are some areas to keep in mind in terms of the status quo of cultural loyalty:
Group Think
Group think helps people with consistency, clarity and sameness (which is comforting if you keep your viewpoint narrow). It homogenizes to the point where almost everything is predictable. The longer the tenure for an employee the greater the need to stick to the norms-cultural loyalty.
It is surprising how many times at an individual level cultural loyalty (CL) is questioned. The questioning typically (especially if drawn out by a CM practitioner) produces smart, viable alternatives. If that person does not have authority or leverage those alternatives die quickly.
Internal Politics
Patterns appear over time in organizations that are a direct result of the jostling and wrestling for position by individuals. That positioning tends to work the best when the jostler follows the path of least resistance. That path is the road to the way we do things here. So you end up with a structure that rewards and reinforces the status quo.
Functional Loyalty
The same patterns but much harder to break occur at a functional level. Certain functions tend to have more leverage than others (usually because they bring in revenue which, on the surface at least, makes sense). Those functions then match their group think against others. What you end up with is a secondary level of loyalty to culture-functional loyalty. Which is a synonym for a silo.
Founder(s) Influence
The majority of the time the patterns that replicate within the silos and cultural pods in an organization are the result of the founder(s) initial vision, values and business direction. Emulating that package tends to move individuals up the ladder. The more that spreads the more group think builds and the harder to break the way we do things becomes. Another secondary level exists here when the organization gets big enough for the functional leaders to steer their own vision and approach.
Guiding change at the transformational/horizontal level requires the ability to frame the “make sense” communication in order to replace the CL that is holding back change and growth. In my own practice I have found that I must take the difficult step of working with leaders to tweak structure and process before trying to touch cultural and functional loyalty. The same pattern happens with the change process itself. Often there are underlying structural and process weaknesses that will make complete fulfillment of the end state close to impossible.
The fine line approach is to draw out the CL that makes collaboration, negotiating and compromise possible.
When it exists is like a sponge. It pulls in until it fills to capacity.
This is something to consider, leverage and acknowledge for change management. It is not necessarily something to be fed and nurtured.
What is Loyalty in the context of change management?
Loyalty to the cause
This is a connection to the core purpose of the change that creates interest, motivation and action. A technologist may quickly be on board for an IT implementation (or not of course). Someone sitting in HR may jump right on board for a human capital initiative. A senior executive may pencil in more and more free space on their calendar for dialogue and exchange for a program that touches their function.
Loyalty to the company
This is the version we think of when we see the word loyalty tied to work or workplace. It might infer staying power in terms of retention, it might mean atmosphere and culture, it might mean the tenacity with which people stick to goals/strategy/plans. It might even be the level of evangelism from participants extending outside internal operations-social marketing.
Ongoing connection
Loyalty that is truly strong is ongoing. Loyalty has a distinct time connection and a measure of strength over that time frame. Ideally it is increasing strength-measured differently for each individual and/or stakeholder.
Which brings me to the sponge.
Loyalty has both a pull and a maximum limit. The expectation of loyalty in change management often creates that maximum limit quickly. This is the common pattern of project/change management- shove something in, assume loyalty and get-…wait for it…Resistance.
Thankfully loyalty has a rosy side too. The pull. The more things (our things being change) make sense and connect in some way the smoother and more powerful the pull. Loyalty tends to spread easily once the pull begins. Charismatic leaders can help with the pull- someone has to communicate the “make sense”. The pull tends to produce evangelists who can increase the speed and, at times, the capacity of the pull.
When it is strong loyalty should be acknowledged within the change process. The acknowledgement can be kudos in communications, illustrations of commitment, examples of time saved through dedication and collaboration, etc. This is the right approach for feeding/nurturing/leveraging loyalty.
What does not always makes sense is rewarding loyalty.
Think of the expectations airline miles have created. Think of the backlash about blackout periods. Rewarded loyalty has a scale of expectations that increases quickly which decreases loyalty if not continuously fed.
Loyalty’s dark side is group think, retention of the lowest common denominator and potentially reduced innovation. In terms of change management the dark side is models and approaches that make incorrect assumptions or are based on internal best practices. The way we do it, a form of cultural loyalty, may not always be the most efficient or effective (effective adding a human capital component).
Keeping all this in mind, change management can build loyalty by rewarding skill and showing how that skill connects to end states and the health of the change entity. If compensation structures do the same bonuses can be added that tie to change participation.
Kudos always work. They work because they are after the fact and specific. Incentives are the opposite, before and general. They do not work so well because of the expectations they create.
When it comes to loyalty, specifically reward rather than generally encourage.
I cozied up under a big blanket with my family and watched an awesome fireworks show. From my spot, my frozen moment in time, I could hear four languages. Before it got dark I could see grunge, full Indian attire, shorts, jeans, silk and denim. There were footballs, Frisbees, baseballs, soccer balls and plastic bags made into balls. People were barbequing, eating from coolers, opening pizza boxes, scooping up with chopsticks.
What exactly were each of these people celebrating?
I can think of a list- freedom, independence, history, America, opportunity, overcoming adversity, the power of the individual, the sense of community (there is nothing better than the communal gasps when a really big fireworks spread hits), awe, beauty, just being outside with family. From bluebloods (my family goes back to well before independence so I get to imagine what it was like then) to newly arrived immigrants the Fourth of July means something. Of course it means something different to each person.
If you were tasked to gather those different perspectives and tie them in to a shared understanding of what the fourth represents you would have to ask a lot of questions and you would get a big range. But the behavior and the feeling and the connection you heard in the answers would have consistency. You could label it; you could language around it. And later you could celebrate in a shared, but different way.
With change management it is important to know that each person sees, acts and celebrates from their own set of eyes and their own connections. Behaviors can be consistent with change, reactions can be put into a list, timing can even be measured, but perspective (which guides action and participation) must be drawn out and understood. Create events and celebrations that give the opportunity for the full range of connection. Draw out perspective with the knowledge that each will be a little different and you can have successful change and the chance to honor the success with celebration.
Because it creates a chance for congregation, for display of achievement, for shining a light on talent, for the noise of a communal group, for laughter, for conversation and for acknowledgement. A parade is a good analogy for understanding Change Management.
We have a Fourth of July parade here in Danville that attracts 40,000 people (almost the same as our population). It is a typical local parade. Lawn chairs are lined up the night before 2 and 3 deep for over a mile. Proof positive that everyone loves a parade.
Change benefits (and moves along smoother and faster) when tradition and people are recognized in the process of changing. A parade happens at the same time each year. Some participants are there for years at a stretch. Some go in and out. Some show up just once. In long standing parades there is an order to the procession. But who’s to say there is not a better sequence?
There will be whispered comments about this year versus last year, the parade not being the same as it used to etc. This is the continual conversation that goes on with the tradition/change interaction.
Within the parade are displays of achievement, participation and accomplishments. An annual meeting can do the same with the last years change. When called out as change and included in a change entities process the displays can become more of a cultural acknowledgment and less of a display of feathers.
Celebration is important in the change process. Tying that celebration into the fabric of an organizations culture can help with transitions from yesterdays tradition to tomorrows change.
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.
|
|
