|
|
A typical bullet point list for change management within an organization:
- something about management vision and understanding
- something about impact
- something about planning
- something about users, stakeholders and participation
They are never numbered, but always in this order. So if they were numbered what would be strange about this?
You can have participation with no vision. I know makes no sense, but look around your organization…
Can you have vision with no participation?
Not for very long.
The order is backwards- 4 needs to be one. Understanding stakeholders over a period of time, refreshed continuously is why change management exists (because it is not happening- or at least its not first on the list).
One could be two- stakeholder then vision.
Impact is a nasty word, negative in connotation. The process and approach that follows usually fits right in to that connotation.
Planning is usually about layering CM over the project process. That does need to be done but not without the stakeholder to vision then back to stakeholders order.
Keep in mind leaders and practitioners (who can influence leaders and the decisions of organizations) you can have participation without vision (however scattered that may become) but you cannot have a vision that means anything without participation. Are you signaling and showing you understand that premise?
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, change awareness, change management strategy, Change Strategy, Executive, stakeholders, vision to work
The joy of consulting when change management is really new- especially in an established firm…
There is no perfect “right” for a change management approach. There are some “not so rights” that make getting change to happen difficult. When CM is not present in an organization or is very new (with none of those “not so’s” inserted) this career is pure joy.
Tread lightly in these cases. Here are a few tips that should fall under “right”:
- Set up something that helps define end states.
- Create a place to go and a place to store.
- Template and “ brand” (lightly please).
- Increase Leadership presence.
- Completely wrap your arms around what exists structurally (and be ready to tweak that).
End states
Knowing where you are going, even better seeing and feeling what that might be like, from multiple perspectives, is crucial to change. The better your organization and its people get at defining and describing where you are going the smoother and faster change happens.
Use leadership development, templates with the right questions to ask, and (shameless plug) external consultants.
Set up ways to collaborate to have the dialogue needed to define end states. Add ways to include facts, numbers and the business side support for those end states.
Landing and Destination spot
Create a “place” where information can be exchanged and stored. Take that one step further and make the place collaborative. Tools like SharePoint can help. Adding portals, blogs and regular newsletter type communications adds to the mix.
Consistency
Integrate consistency into your approach.
Have regular communications that happen on a consistent basis. Use colors, shapes, styles to define a few types of communication (maybe your leaders get the blue header, projects green). Do the same within projects and keep that consistent from project to project. (Do feel free to improve as you go along, just make sure you communicate differences and don’t go so far that the original consistency gets confusing).
Consistency can be tough because you do not want to police and/or stifle interaction. The more formal the exchange the easier it is to “template” it. The more you want honest exchange the softer the edges of the consistency box.
Leadership presence
If setting up this change management entity, process, approach is a change initiative of its own move this paragraph up to the top. Leadership presence is crucial for effective change. Trust and energy equal participation. All three can equal end states with some good planning and lots of work through expertise.
Make sure you have places, events and regular activities where leaders can be seen, heard and, in a perfect world, disagreed with once in awhile.
If your leaders do not already accept accountability and responsibility (to their employees and stakeholders- to the board and shareholders always seems to be a given) then create places where they can illustrate their tie to change.
If they do not have those two trust building qualities give them places in your approach and structure to build connection. Maybe you need just as much movement from employees toward leaders as you are asking of your leaders toward stakeholders?
History and structure
While putting this all together keep a list of what has come before.
Culture, structure and history either hold change back or help it move forward. Sometimes you have to call any or all of them out as roadblocks and then build something new. Many times you can simply make just the right adjustments to hold on to what you have while growing into what you need (or want).
By comparison to the less pristine organizations pure client environments are a joy to work with. Having to work with change management false starts and undeveloped structure is often like doing two engagements at the same time. If you are lucky enough to be in one of those “pure” organizations (maybe you are a start up…) get a good start with defining end states, creating landing and exchange places, adding effective consistency, building leadership presence and honoring history and structure (just enough to move forward).
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, C level, change awareness, change communications, Change Design, change management, change management consultant, Change Strategy
Last year seemed to be the year of executive churn at least from my vantage point. Many of my senior leader contacts moved on or were moved on. In a few cases the churn within an organization was substantial (3 or more senior leaders gone in the same year).
This could be the economy, it could be a speeding up of shortened C level and VP tenure or it could just be the machinations of career building. Regardless of the reason there is an interesting dynamic that accompanies this pattern. The trusted adviser(s) are still around and/or still available.
Have trusted advisers become the Strategy Glue for these organizations?
A consultant who has worked with multiple executives successively has a unique perspective on the organization. They know what is possible, probable and likely. They usually have a strong sense of the direction the organization should go to be successful, at least from a people standpoint (if not business too).
Aside from possibly the CEO they can build up tenure with no threat. One clients end to a contract might be the open door for another. Two or three client companies with this relationship for the consultant and partnering can be a back and forth over a period of years- with new executives each time.
The culture and history of course do not turn that fast.
A trusted adviser will be well aware of this. They will probably be twice as effective with the unmoving nature of culture. They could very well have been there for the selection process for the replacement executive so have a head start on integration of a new face into a longer term plan.
I am throwing all this out as a stream of thought while thinking the use of a trusted adviser, especially for the CEO (who MAY stay longer than others), to glue together a longer term strategy is a wise move.
Strategy probably belongs internal. Strategic planning and suggestions may just make sense as an external element- especially in this senior executive churn environment.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, change awareness, change management strategy, Change Strategy, corporate change management, Executive, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, strategy
Sometimes change management is an operational, analytical, label-less effort.
Here is a short list of situations where change management now exists without project, program or initiative labels. Each can be a prerequisite for transformational change:
- Change Entity
- End User Support
- Introducing Change Management
- Non-program Focused Organizations
Change Entity
Situation:
Client brings in single external consultant to review organization, or function, for skill, competency, talent, understanding of change management and an evaluation of current project process. There is no label for this effort. The budget likely comes straight from the executives own flexible pool of money.
There are deliverables built in (the analysis and assessment), but it is mostly a “rover” search with lots of dialogue and interaction.
It is operational in that current process is reviewed. It is analytical with an external eye. It is label-less, except that the organization now has a high level consultant who is making connections horizontally, vertically and collaboratively that do not officially exist in the organization.
End User Support
Situation:
Users (this is a broad definition meaning anyone who is using something in the organizations structure- software, process, procedure, etc.) can’t find what they need. Maybe users do not know how to do things (which is very common now with the almost complete elimination of real training). One common version, in big older organizations, is that no one knows who does what and there really is no way to find out.
This one could be loaded with deliverables. I find in these scenarios it helps to create something to illustrate things I am explaining. For process it may be a description of a much needed role that does not exist. For software it may be a quick video to teach something not used that could be, or being used, but incorrectly (OneNote in Office is a good example). For procedure it might be a list of places where too many steps exist or where steps are not clear (or do not make sense).
This is at it core operational. It is analytical, but on the people side- finding the spots where small change could make user work life easier, preferably instantly, is the key to a successful effort. This version of label-less change is about how people do the tasks that feed (or will feed after the label-less behavior change) into labeled change.
Introducing Change Management
Situation:
Change management does not exist in the organization and the wise executive client brings in a single external consultant to build understanding and perspective. (shameless plug- of CM that has an end state focused positive approach).
This one may have no deliverables. Really the consultant is the deliverable. (Paying for knowledge and experience and the ability to build connections in the organization, how novel [I think that used to be called “consulting”]). OR, it could have a ton of deliverables. If a change entity is in the works for the future, the introduction can be a chance to get a jump start on templates (yes there will be SOME templates) and design elements.
CM introduction has operational components if the consultant is smart enough to know that ease of regular work equals willingness to participate. It is analytical behind the introduction. Every organization is different. Integrating change management the first time around requires finesse. It helps to bring in the analytical element to consider various measurement aspects within the organization. Fight me on this, but measurement is the enemy of CM. Don’t fight me too hard, I realize your enemy can often become your most trusted partner with a little respect thrown in.
A CM introduction works better when it is label-less. Don’t tell that to those “get-all-over-the-organization-with-our process (and templates)” consulting firms this. They know a big bright sign that says, “we (insert company name) are HERE” can bring in a whole lot of dependent revenue. (The dependency quickly has two players- client and previously inserted company).
Non-program Focused Organizations
Situation:
To me the strangest of the bunch. Many organizations- well established, more or less monopolies, with no incentive or need for real big change- operate in a non-program focused format. So the situation is that the client WANTS some labels. The client wants to be able to separate some things out, name them and illuminate the possibility for change small or big.
This is analytical. Numbers must come into the mix somehow. This type of organization relies on numbers for “proof” of everything. This is operational. You may be looking at suggesting something that is absolutely not done in the organization (hint: strategy first, the naming, followed by tactics the work rather than what exists- the other way around). This is a label-less change initiative to put some labels on things. Sounds like fun!
Thanks to more visibility for change management, in understanding and presence, a good chunk of work for senior external consultants is now label-less CM. From the creation of change entities to end user support and simple introduction of change management, especially for organizations that do not have a project focus, label-less change is becoming much more common.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, change awareness, Change Design, change excercise, change management, change management consultant, change management strategy, Executive, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
We could use more of this for change management.
:to withdraw one’s attention
Merriam-Webster
Webster’s example fits perfectly: “If we prescind from the main issue for a moment, there is much to be gained by studying some corollary questions.”.
Since the “main issue” usually has something to do with short term tasks, resistance, effect or backlash prescind-ing is a way to open perspective and see the broader picture.
Since most CM is added well after the start of the change process a little prescind-tion can reset the timeline to something more appropriate for transition to the new change.
I know every time I have prescind-ed with my clients important components to the change were made visible.
Take the time to veer from sense of urgency, prescind to secondary issues once in awhile.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, change awareness, change management strategy, vision to work
Change management can sound great. I can explain what it looks like.
In reality big broad, honestly transformational change is difficult if not impossible.
(I see none of these as reasons to give up the quest though).
Here is the short list:
- short term perspectives
- short term measurement
- leader tenure
- status quo
- vertical orientation
- Money, time, competency
Short term perspectives
Big, broad and long in time takes a hit when all the stakeholders, process and structure deal with short increments. The favorite seems to be by quarter. Imagine running your life by quarter and never thinking ahead. Look at it that way and you see how ridiculous it could become.
Well in organizations, at least here in the US, we are there.
It is so short term that most decisions are made in order to satisfy personal needs- the organization plays a distant second fiddle.
I have seen studies that show video games or multi tasking remap our brains if done repetitively over time. I’m pretty sure short term viewpoints have a similar correlation. Which of course means anyone who has morphed into a short term decision maker would have to be retrained (and practiced) to develop long term perspective.
Short term measurement
That would do no good if people continue to be measured for short term results.
It is like everyone in the organization is measured similar to a sales person.
Performance management and the systems that support it are well behind the curve here. It is comical (and sad) as an outsider to watch PM processes operate. (Every big change engagement I am on has PM tugs and pulls since initiatives are multi year). There have been times when the participants have to try to remember things that happened in the past (part of the reason there are “paper trails”). If the process measured long term it would be a continuum and the PM meetings would simply be conversations, preferably of the planning type (rather than evaluation).
The only time I have ever seen short term measurement (up to a year) be advantageous for major change is when sales gets a huge buy or contract and knows they will never meet their upcoming numbers. At that point (since no one is going to tweak the measurement system) a very important functional group of stakeholders is primed to participate.
Leader tenure
Performance is not the only short term thing. Presence, as in still working here, is too. I am a little shocked at the length of tenure for senior executives. Three to five years is pretty common. So the first year you are getting your bearings, the second you dig in, the third you adjust and the fourth you begin looking around for other options.
Exactly where is big change supposed to fit in that equation?
Stay tuned for this post: I got to thinking yesterday for some organizations the only consistency now at the higher levels are the external consultants. I could easily be connected to a client long enough and with multiple engagements hooked together to come up with and facilitate horizontal organizational strategy- long term. All this while the owners and leaders churn in and out of the organization.
Status quo
Is just a big giant boat that will not move.
You can’t just say, “let’s really take a whack at our status quo and stir things up a bit”. Status quo is both a result and a root cause. Status quo is supported by structure that can be continually tweaked to support status quo. To change status quo you have to remove, or at least weaken, anything that might support it. You have to do something to structure to change status quo. And you have to stay ahead of that because each tweak creates a new status quo that only has a certain amount of useful time.
Vertical orientation
Silos.
Are everywhere.
They are big, as in functions. They are small as in little internal power circles. They are geographic. They are even by expertise and competency- I have seen many change management silos built right into the organization (with, yes, the same supporting structure as everyone else).
Money, time, competency
The scapegoats. And reasons of their own.
Money is never enough. I don’t mean “everyone wanting more budget”. I mean reasonably budgeting, preferably over the whole organization so that initiatives have a chance. The sad comical version of bad budgeting is the 10% (pick your number) across the board reduction. This I have seen more times than I can count in the last three years. What you get is everything functioning 10% worse than it did before.
Time is looked at too lightly. Time, as in not giving enough, is something that effects people. People effected carries into the next project, program or initiative (good news- it works in both directions negative AND positive). I actually think there would be MORE sense of urgency if timelines were stretched. People would be itching to accomplish something.
Competency is eroding. The more there is a short term focus the more thoughtful planning, balancing, comparing, analyzing and discussing go out the window. Interacting and balancing people and business is an ongoing learning process. It is not really like “riding a bike… you never forget”. Think in the short term, get closer and closer to ego and farther and farther away from community and collaboration and you will lose competency (I wanted to make this a fun sentence and say “become incompetent”…).
Short term perspectives, measurement and leadership tenure along with status quo, vertical orientation, money, time and competency (or lack of) all make big transformational change almost impossible. It is possible to address these and take away almost. At that point you are on the path to successful BIG change.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, CEO, change awareness, change management, Change Strategy, corporate change management, corporate strategy, Executive, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, vision to work
No cover letter, but link to Linkedin profile discussion thread- here.
Fascinating.
A little sad.
300+ comments to illuminate human nature and change.
As with most Linkedin group discussions this started with a simple question and morphed into a full on discussion- this one on recruiting and social media/the future.
The connection to change:
Linkedin
In this case is an example of an alternative to established practices (status quo). A profile is not a replacement for cover letters or resumes, but it could be. I, personally, have had a couple of roles due strictly to Linkedin as the forward facing entry to my background and experience.
Linkedin could become, and likely is in many cases (and also is behind the process when a recruiter or client looks at a profile on their own) an adjunct to other displays of a persons career record.
Cover Letters
Like cover letters.
In general does a cover letter seem strange to you now? Or does it make sense and those who question it seem strange?
A cover letter is a specific written document (yes it can and pretty much is now, paperless, but it is a little like a book- who knows how long those things will be around) that can place the candidate in the advertised role ahead of the competition. It is meant to be used to prove you are the right fit.
It is also a complete waste of valuable time for candidates since many of those fantastic, specific, time consuming CV’s are never even read by a real person.
It used to be a great tool to get attention- if you were a good writer… which may have NOTHING to do with the role you are applying for. Because there are alternatives it is worth looking, comparing and using both, all or the new stuff. Sticking with the old is risky though.
Dinosaurs
It was risky just to BE a dinosaur.
Not that they had any choice…
The Future
What if they did, those dinosaurs, have a choice?
What if those who risk losing a good candidate by adhering to their own or their organizations antiquated (maybe) procedures could tweak things a little to ensure survival?
That might just make for a future better than the inevitable.
People
When it comes to change we are not talking about dinosaurs who didn’t have a chance (or a choice). We are talking about people. People can change rules. People can make procedures grey until the grey becomes black and white in a new and better way (could be time to move to the grey thing, again, at this point if it took awhile to get there).
In our example individual people with very little control over their system could just go look at the profile. They could suggest the ad read differently (giving the profile a chance might be a consideration). They could just set aside any rigid discomfort they personally may feel and accept the application without a cover letter.
Or they could dig their feet in and intensely defend the need to follow directions (do what you are told, make my job easier….).
If everyone followed directions made by someone else, perfectly, with no questioning the world would be a very different place.
I will let you decide if that is good or not.
Technorati Tags: Change, change awareness, cover letter, HR, linkedin, recuriter
Coffee with a friend yesterday revealed the difficulties of translating perspective (could be theory if more developed) to application.
“That sounds great, but what would it look like?”.
Sounds Great
Change is about a spot in the future- the end state(s).
It is also about skill and competency (or lack thereof).
There is a path to get there.
My own perspective, I think crucial for translating to action, is that change needs to be future oriented. More and more I am emphasizing “End State Change Management” while at the same time explaining Horizontal Change Management.
Sounds great:
Seeing the goal, working backwards from there to imagine the path, determining what is needed as a result to compare to todays resources and assets (people and physical), beginning the list of missing pieces and, then, starting the project management process.
Sounds great and there is a clear distinction between this perspective and other present-to-future-gap-filling versions.
“But I am a client”, friend says, or “I am recommending you”, “What does this LOOK like?”.
Looks Like
Specifically it looks like a heavy emphasis on work with the owner and leaders at the very beginning of the change.
It is crucial for them to be able to articulate different forms of the end state that apply to different stakeholders. The first description, and usually the most difficult, is their own version. This looks like single sessions with the owner with many questions from me and/or sessions with other leaders with the questions and the dialogue that follows.
The Deliverable: End state descriptions (written and, hopefully, audio and video versions).
It looks like doing an assessment of the organization and its current processes toward change and project management to see to what extent future orientation is being practiced. That is the positive spin way to say this. What really happens is an assessment of all the status quo pieces that will slow down or do slow down change of any kind. Calling out this mindset (which instantly begins to tweak it for some) is worth its weight in results.
The Deliverable: A list of all the things, from easy to address to difficult, that will effect this change process.
Because I am a visual/spatial person a broader (in reach, time and effort) picture of the change needs to be created. One of those “hard to explain, what does this look like” talents that a good change practitioner brings, is the ability to look at your initiative big, wide and horizontal with nothing in the way of a web of collaborative connections.
The Deliverable(s): A map of all of the areas this change will touch is one deliverable. Your own org. chart a second that either exists (visually not textual) or can be created. The third comes later- the REAL org. chart that illustrates power levers, influence and (hate to say this) resistance areas (OK, and people).
A note on this particular deliverable: The map often develops into a hyperlinked visual and textual journey for the change. We are all used to hyperlinked explorations. All those little bounces around to understand connections can be built into this map. Those links can be enhanced and built on as the change process proceeds. This can make the change real and a shared effort for stakeholders.
With this core package of written, preferably genuine, descriptions; early executive media in the form of audio and video; status quo perspective and structure illuminated; and a picture that can be used to strategize, plan and “see” the change it looks like a solid start to any initiative.
What follows is more of the same at different levels, an overlap of some of the typical deliverables used with other approaches (stakeholder assessment, “readiness” assessment, training plan, communication plan, leadership development and communications plan, etc.).
An end state focus for change sounds great. It looks like an early process with three distinct deliverables that put individuals and the organization in context with this change. Perspective must change before application can begin.
Take a peek tomorrow for my take on why this all looks good on paper but is exceedingly difficult (dare I say doomed in many ways) to make happen. Many factors are practically impossible to address and control. Change is a challenge though- I love that part!
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, C level, CEO, change awareness, Change Design, change management, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, Context, corporate change management, corporate strategy, End State, Executive, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, organizational change, Value, vision to work
Google has a beta out- Insights for Search- that is a fantastic time-sucking view of whatever you choose.
As with most data you have to dig and you have to extrapolate (or just fudge to support your perspective- I am kidding, but of course that is what happens most of the time- to well gathered data).
Type in a search word or phrase (just like Adwords) and see the trending.
Let’s do a little stroll for “change management”:
The numbers on the right are not absolute, they are scaled and normalized in relation to all other searches on the web (there’s a monster algorithm). So 100 is very popular, 20 not so. Remember though this is in relation to everything.
Let’s play then with our term.
Was there more change in 2004 than 2011, and so therefore, more interest for our search term?
Is Change Management more important in up-cycles or down-cycles?
If up is the answer does the graph spike when the economy (in this case the world economy) improves?
Since Zimbabwe ranked 100 this term could be too broad for our taste.
How about “Change Management Process”?
Now you have the 2008 – 2011 timeframe illuminated and more specific. Seems understanding how to go through change had popularity.
What about increase in searches for other terms?
“When you see Breakout listed instead of an actual percentage, it means that the search term has experienced a change in growth greater than 5000%.” is Google’s explanation of number 1. Wiki seems to be short form for Wikipedia, but there are links to people using Wiki’s within change management.
Number 2 climate change. A little external environment fear for all those other changes (you might or might not be able to manage).
Number 3 PowerPoint slides. How quick can these searchers explain (Wiki link) and show (slides) change management?
Number 4. And find a job to do that with.
Number 5 and 6. With a quote, template and PDF’s.
Number 7. And then they take the course? (Actually unless it is a degree program that might be good).
Number 8. Gotta move on to the installation with some sort of framework…
Here is the chart for “project change management” (stop scratching that chalkboard…):
What is going on there? Started projects that got eliminated right about the middle of 2008?
A little jump on the competitors in 2011?
And finally my favorite “strategic change management”:
This is not a filtered search.
In relation to everything, strategic change management gets 20 to 60 and 100 in California. I can appreciate that as much as the 76 degree in February sun coming in my office window!
You can REALLY dig into these stats. I have been stuck in the tangle for the last couple of hours. This is better than the Wonder Wheel (which went away).
Take a look at Google Insight or Search. It is a time consuming chance to romp around statistics and search trends. You might be able to ride the wave of the next big change…
Technorati Tags: change awareness, change management, change management strategy, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
Knowing what it takes for change to happen and be successful, this search to our blog, “corporate leadership resistance to change” is almost frightening. Change is next to impossible when there is leadership resistance. I must admit (even though I get it and have obviously seen this) this caught me off guard. I have never thought of leadership resistance as an official category for consideration for change management. It is now.
Let’s lay this out:
This scenario is usually because Organic Change rises to a leadership level. Organic change typically happens when leadership passes responsibility or does not take responsibility (sometimes using the excuse that they are “testing” the rising leaders). So “leadership resistance” is probably the “no” that the stakeholders trying to create change get when they present the idea, or more likely, the change already begun. Either way while typical in a lot of organizations this is not the way to translate strategy into action. This is the reverse- tactics trying to dictate strategy. There are a host of reasons why resistance will happen.
- Power
- Money and Budgeting
- Effectiveness of the Organic Presenters
- The nature of resistance
Power
Strategy is the realm of senior executives.
They will take suggestions and input; they may even trust the guidance of an external consultant, but they will not relinquish the control. Change that has to rise up the hierarchy must have been done behind backs, must have been discussed without the executive present and must in some way be a power lever pull. In fairness the request could be to loop the executive in to situations they themselves set up…
Money and Budgeting
The request will not just be for participation, sponsorship or connection- it will be for money. And it will be after some version of money has already been spent (probably just time, but that always equals money). Resistance to fingers in the wallet is pretty normal.
If this is a common scenario in an organization, the “bring it to me so I can make the big decisions” approach, then the money and budget dance is probably an enjoyable exchange for the leader. Get those PowerPoint slides out, give me a show, convince me.
Effectiveness of the Organic Presenters
Trust.
The executive may not feel trust toward those who are presenting the change. He/she may think they have more information, that they know better or that those delivering the request aren’t capable of coming up with changes or getting them to happen.
The nature of resistance
Yes sometimes people just automatically resist.
This is one of those times. The make sense explanation of change does not really work in reverse. If there was that explanation and it was good it would probably make that leader look pretty bad. Being made to look bad however innocent equals resistance.
Plus leaders love to resist those who report to them. It is character building, right? (for whom?)
OK what to do about this since that was the reason, I’m sure, for the search?
- Change the dynamic- stop encouraging organic change and start integrating change and operations in an overall strategy.
- Label change and give leaders ownership- have leaders run change within big change (or stand alone change). Just make sure they only have operational responsibility connected to the change. (Leadership resistance often follows too many requests).
- Improve your end state explanations- leaders are stakeholders, and people, they will resist for all the same reasons everyone else does.
- Is it possible strategy is weak and they have every reason to resist? No explanation needed. Turn around and look at this from a different direction.
Resistance to change by leaders falls in two categories- one is scaled up invitation from organic change and the other requests for participation down the hierarchy. Both point directly to the way the organization combines strategy execution with day-to-day operations.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CEO, change awareness, Change Design, change failure, change management, change management strategy, Change Strategy, corporate change management, corporate strategy, Executive, resistance to change, stakeholders
|
|
