|
|
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.
Things begin to pick up for business (less fear, willingness to spend hoarded cash, new competition appearing from garages- not sure which is the cause, but things are picking up in the change arena) and the revisiting begins. Change anew. Except some of it is the programs that were cancelled a year or more ago. How is restarted change different?
History Doubled
The ability to move change forward is always effected by previous attempts (bad or good). To start something that did not finish on the first attempt is potentially tempting fate. If, in our current case, the economy can be blamed for the earlier stop, starting again just slots right into the business environment.
Care must be taken with communication for a restart because, excuses aside, a mistake was made. Sure, as a leader you do not think so – it was all part of the plan. The problem is to stakeholders it must not have been a good plan. Now the Pandora’s box of trust, faith in leaders (which is a specific kind of trust), I told you so’s and the appearance of mishaps is opened.
Address the double history issue with crystal clear as transparent as possible communications. You might want to recheck and possibly rethink the new plan- the last thing you want is two historical mishaps.
Second Chances
Everybody believes in second chances. You have one if you are restarting change. Some of your work may already be completed. Redo work can be done better. Mistakes can be corrected. And acknowledged. Which leads me to the “be careful”.
By necessity taking this second chance is assuming empathy. There is a difference between restarted change and any other- the empathy has to flow from the stakeholders to the leaders. Empathy should (I always hesitate to use this word, but it fits now) go from leaders to stakeholders, that is a given. To go both ways sets up an interesting dynamic. Maybe I should have said an effective dynamic because the core of relationships connected to accomplishments is shared empathy. Give it a double dose on your second chance restarts.
Rebuilding is impressive
Taking what you have, envisioning something different and better and then layering in additions is smart change. As with any remodel matching the old lines to the new can be difficult. Because that is an obvious component of rebuilding/remodeling everyone is impressed when the result is seamless. With your restart this is an opening for a view of the end state that includes overcoming and tackling obstacles.
For that to make sense as an explanation there must be honesty, transparency and camaraderie around stops and starts and the end states they can create.
With that you can restart and rebuild at the same time.
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 )
- Ramp up the urgency
- Grab some like minded people to help out
- Now create a vision/story that will increase the tension… I mean urgency
- Start talking, start convincing and start bargaining if necessary
- Put some people in charge- in fact hold them accountable NOW
- You might want to consider some short term wins since you are so far into this
- Give 110%. With enough force you can get a square peg in a round hole
- Now glue it all together to form a new legacy
Just a few comments-
This is actually out of order. The last thing you want to do is follow this in order. In case you missed that- It does not have to be in this order. You will probably benefit from moving that urgency part down to the middle where, in a reasonable change effort things make sense, money is there and the people with the competency are in the right place. Then the urgency is to actually get the pieces of the process accomplished.
Why, exactly would you wait until the sixth step for a win? Any kind of a win even a short one. Why not make the first step solid corporate strategy? Believe me letting change come from that will be a BIG win.
The gathering of information to get to a description of the end state would follow.Urgency and vision close to each other is sure to get snickers from those who have seen it before.
Communicating to get buy-in sounds a little like an expensive TV ad. If you need “buy in” you either have weak change or weak leaders. Yes you will need to explain the sensibility of the change and illustrate your command of the upcoming process. Do that and you will have participation with motivation.
Never let up on your focus on tying context of work into the big picture. Never let up on illustrating all of the pieces, all of the timing, all of the successes and all of the changes of direction.
If you have to make it stick you might want to rethink your eight steps…
Good start. The primary competency of a change management consultant, I am beginning to think, is anticipation. Or ,so you do not confuse this with some fight or flight tendency (also well honed in CM practitioners) intuition might be a better word. We can tell you what will happen as each little action reverberates across the change web. We have probably seen something like this before, people are people and because of that, mistakes are consistently repeated from organization to organization and person to person.
Odds are you are not thinking of:
- How your assumptions effect your approach
- The true effect the change will have on operational efficiency
- The true effect operations will have on the path to the end state
- Importance of placement of change process- usually too low in organization
- Importance of timing of CM- usually too late
- The effect of leadership (different than the “importance of”)
- The power of one (how well is your approach going to acknowledge at the individual level)
- Context and big picture- will a stakeholder know where they fit and where you are in the process?
- Your performance system and its stranglehold on change
- Your leaders and their stranglehold on change (see previous bullet- not necessarily their fault)
- How you are dealing with assessment and measurement
- The difference between training and awareness
- Leveraging transformational initiatives for succession and professional development
- Accountability, responsibility and “ownership”
It is a much longer list, but you get the idea. Or do you?
If you really want to “transform” your organization looking at a much bigger picture is essential.
If your approach is the typical one of firing CM into the fray and hoping for little fall out this is an unnecessary list… until the next time you try to make a big change.
In keeping with my practical, as efficient as possible approach, I have to ask Why? Why the push lately for metrics, ROI and just plain justification? Maybe we are on the long tail of the same pattern from HR, OD, Human Capital (did I miss any?)…Somehow there is a group think around the need for metrics for the “people side”.
You would think that is coming from the business focused metrics guided senior executives. Only one snag- from one career and one CM practitioner- in my 13 years working with over 70 firms I have never had a senior leader ask for metrics. And I, wisely I think, do not suggest them.
The last thing I want is for the insufficient CM budget to be stripped further by metrics design and gathering. Although if you are a client reading this a full budget with the opportunity to design the metrics would be nice…
Let’s formulate the front end.
There are two types of CM to consider. One is the kind that gets inserted or overlaid on the project process, the other my horizontal/circular view of change. For mine ongoing operational measures can often be used since large scale transformational change must be weaved into the organizations overall process. For the other the only true measures would be speed to get change accomplished and effectiveness against inevitable slowdown.
Both have problems. It is not fair to use operational metrics when you are mixing in more work and effort. The “more” slows things down while the CM helps get to the new state, but they likely balance out. Speed only works if you have an equal initiative to measure against. Same with facilitating slowdown.
CM at its core is a discipline that helps corral and funnel work and effort toward the accomplishment of a business goal. A good measurement of that would show that less time was spent on understanding, learning, collaborating, dialoguing and planning than would have happened without CM. I personally would value subjective measures taken from stakeholders (senior leaders being part of that category). Surveys and questionnaires can turn those responses into measurements. The ask why approach must be critically evaluated since those tools are favorites of consultants looking to expand their revenue base (and are, apparently, crucial for that group looking to legitimize).
Now my commentary.
If assumptions are wrong, then approaches are tainted, which makes results less than optimal, which begs the question, Why measure a substandard delivery? Previous posts of mine have pushed the idea of separating CM from typical performance measures. This metric group think is a perfect example of the desire to monitor and control, coincidentally one of the foremost roadblocks for change.
This is also another example of pushing CM deeper into the organization since it is analysts that will typically do the work of actual measurement. This is a connection and use of time that is essential to successful CM. The work of connecting to and gathering metrics would (I avoided using will although human nature as it is that is the right word) take away valuable connection time with stakeholders. So it becomes a time issue as well as a money issue-two strikes. And, of course, that time now potentially effects the actual metrics and makes CM look less successful- nice loop.
Smack dab in the middle of every initiative is the muddy part. That is where many small decisions have to be made. Where each of those decisions pits itself against another (typically across functions). The mud is made thicker, stickier and harder to negotiate with performance measures that are short term and not tied to the initiative. The traverse is complicated because everyone is trying to escape the muddy field first. What does that look like for CM?
Politics
Many companies have a “greater good” from a branding and loyalty perspective that loses its connection when it does not jive with individual potential and reward. “We do not do it that way” is a common refrain (and I feel the mud get thick). Except that I can almost always find someone who has or who is willing to do it another way- IF they stand to reap individual gain.
Technology
No matter how thorough the change process, no matter how deep the questions and the gathering of information, technology always seems to turn out to be more complicated than anyone thought. First it is the old stuff, then it is trying to figure out the new stuff, then it is the human element of “different keystrokes”. The mud gets next to impassible if the “When” date of adoption got set early and is hard and fast (hint the biggest reason for failure of technology initiatives- a hard set adoption day). You can make a sloppy path through the mud if there is a transition from old to new.
Capability
How many times have you found yourself having said, “I can do that” and then realizing you really can not? Big, fast, but never ending initiatives are filled with these altruistic (or self serving see category one) promises/assumptions. It helps for the CM team to not only look at apparent capability, but build in, develop and/or consider safety valves.
Ascension
Every one of those stakeholders have a career. Every one of those careers is looking for a path. We all know that career path is its own mud field. Odds are you have dirtied someone next to you in your climb. Initiatives are often a free for all through the gunk. Very often the organization supports and even encourages this kind of behavior. And very often CM does not get to address that structure before everyone runs into the bog.
Ttttiming
Is never easy. Our section of mud is filled with holes that drag the initiative deeper into problems. All those little decisions we mentioned earlier eventually add up to DELAYS. You could pad time early on, but if anyone knows about it you can bet they will take it. This is the area where it is a godsend to have a crack project manager on the team. CM practitioners have a good sense of human nature and how that effects forward progress; project managers can translate that into a time equation.
So the muddy messy part is a dance between what you built into your change process and what appeared on its own. It is typically a constant slog thanks to the “too late, too low” approach for most initiatives. The extreme muddiness is to be dropped into the middle of change when someone else started it- all too common. That is when you move around in the mud and keep track of the mess, the corrections, the results as experience for the next time around.
Thanks to the facts that CM is placed to late and too low, that stakeholders get it and organizations untouched by botched change are rare, practitioners and their leader clients are forced to outright say or infer that, “this time will be different”. And so we have a task built in to the very beginnings of the change process to gather the historical record of Leadership and/or Change Management’s success and failure.
Here is how to get close to supporting that promise-
- Find out why previous efforts were bad or good
- Wind back the clock on this initiative (see fact one above)
- Craft and deliver an introductory communication that clearly lays out upcoming interaction
- Connect with the leader(s) responsible for bullet one
- Mentor and model from day one
You are trying as the CM practitioner and/or the owner of the change to acknowledge the previous attempts, grab a dose of humility for second chances, show your expertise and command of the process and illustrate that change, changes, as you go along.
Change Management is often a race to stay ahead of the setting sun. By setting sun I mean demise of the initiative itself. I am running out of fingers to count the times I have been involved in or seen the complete stop of major initiatives (most in the 7 figure + range).
Here are a few reasons why this happens-
- Change Management is added too late
- Strategy does not connect well to resources and motivation
- Strategy is not present, misguided or unrealistic
- Timeline is unrealistic
- The people are unrealistic (yes sometimes there is TRUE resistance- see bullet one through four)
Change Management is often seen as a training, communications, speed the project along discipline. I cringe when I see something like “provide training, communications and accelerate project implementation”. Cars accelerate.
As a result of this perspective (one seen in both practitioner and client I might add) change fits at the beginning of the implementation of the change, somewhere a little after all of the planning, all of the designing , all of the making of the task lists. Which is exactly where it falls 99% of the time (my stat). And one step behind the setting sun.
To make this worse, and effectively make Change Management even less relevant, the practice of CM is used as an overlap to other processes. The perfect example is placing the machinations (word chosen wisely-CM deals with people) of CM under the watch of the project manager. Or in the hierarchy having CM report to HR, or IT, or Finance or any function.
In both these cases, perspective and placement, CM will be well behind the setting sun on every initiative.
Unrealistic timelines. I will leave the timing of tasks to a project management/operations discussion. It is the timing of the coordination of people and their human nature luggage that is important here. With the change process weaved into the whole from true beginning to end state there is actually is the possibility of speeding up timelines. But that will only work when the original timelines included that human nature component. Which we know rarely happens because CM is added well after that planning stage.
Strategy.
This is corporate strategy I am referring to not the strategy of implementation. Many consultants and their clients confuse the plan for implementation as strategy. Use “strategic implementation” and you might be able to language and separate the two meanings. They are different and stakeholders are not only well aware of the difference, but confused when leadership and engagement leaders do not know or see the difference.
Corporate strategy is the vision of the leaders, the possibilities in the current (or near future) environment, the direction of the organization as a whole, the business objectives on a high level to get to profit, success and sustainability. Every one of your initiatives should, and most certainly does, connect in some way with at least one part of this definition. Why is it then that there is no thread or glue to make this connection?
If you have operational change management in your organization you might actually be able to have a component that looks like the current approach to change that makes sense and works. If you understand, as a leader, that change management is about the connection of work to vision and vice versa then you will provide the avenues for that connection to happen. If you understand that the moment of the “idea” for an initiative is about the time Change Management needs to be added…
…you just might get a polar version of a day where the day is long and the sun sets right at the end state.
There is a time frame built in to the change management process that I have found carries from client to client, transformation to transformation. This may be due to human nature, the consistency of organizational interaction or something within the change process itself. In a nutshell here is what the timing looks like-
The three month period is the time it takes to have enough information for a genuine dialogue about strategy, vision and end states. It takes this long for us, Vision to Work, Inc. to gather the right amount of information to question, affirm and coalesce reality with illusion. This period is the absolute core for transformational initiatives. I would say it is a necessity for all others, but you could shorten the timeframe (but keep the relationship timing to the other phases) if the change is functionally contained.
The second phase is the gathering of stakeholders… wagons in a circle? process. This is where the measurement and gauging of participation levels takes place. In some ways this is the (what I consider old fashioned) stakeholder analysis. It is important during this time to see the change as a big picture event that spreads over a certain area. Gauging what that area is, how fast the spread, who gets touched and to what extent, is the output at six months.
Once the end state can be defined with all its angles and it is clear what that means for the spread of effect then the lists, the timelines, the tasks can begin to be created and charted. This is the spot, assuming the first two stages were early and thorough, that the PMO can shine. The change management that needs to be integrated in their processes has been set up and can be supported. This box can be anywhere from 3 months to years in length. It is the one that can severely stretch- expectations, time, money, patience and the resources of the organization. You can forget the shorter time length if the first two stages are skipped-no matter the initiative.
And I can’t help but point out to any senior level executive who happens to read this… right HERE is typically where the CM practitioners are brought in. If you have done this in the past-OOPs.
The last box/phase is the transition to the change. It is when the, we hope, inevitability of the end state begins to become apparent, comfortable and, to those on board, is the present. For a technology implementation you could call this the Adoption phase (assuming a certain percent begin that process before it is official).
For our own thinking, and now yours, here is our model overlaid-
The output for each phase is the answer(s) to the respective “W” question. The time periods of each phase are consistent, but the importance and effect is represented by the size of the first box. It is when these time frames are crunched, or worse, when the relationships are tweaked that change runs into problems. I think I can safely extend that statement to projects and, at times, organizations as a whole.
|
|
