|
|
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.
This http://horizontalchange.com/2009/12/dandelions-in-the-lawn-organic-change-management-design/ most popular post so far must strike a nerve. I don’t have the luxury of knowing who or what type of person links to it, but the numbers most likely make it a range. Interested because you are stuck in a field of organic change? Interested because you are worn down by stagnancy? Think that if the ground swells someone above might pay attention? Or just like it when the pot gets stirred?
So lets just say thanks to the last couple of years we should be happy to have any kind of my kind of urgency- my kind being energy toward work not the chicken-on-its-last-leg-kind. What can be gained from organic change movements in an organization?
Energy
I have learned over the years that while not ideal change management can be dropped in anywhere and provide benefits. Change does not happen without energy, both the hyper and the inner calm kind. If you are a leader and you did not stay ahead of your organic change it is now your responsibility to direct the flow. Just remember energy dissipates-sometimes quickly.
Teamwork
Organic change to continue relies on waves of connection tied to, usually immediate, outcomes. The energy tends to build and attach itself in apparent disconnected areas. Take a breath if you are a leader. Those types of connections are the key to horizontal change (at any level) and to the spider web of change. Beware though group think and the power of new relationships to detach people from business objectives.
Innovation
As soon as someone breaks away, in their mind, from hierarchy and the status quo ideas flood in like rain from above. Rain, floods and water are common insertions in writing to wipe something away. Change at its core must always wipe something away to create a spot for the new. The hard part about innovation and strategy is what to wipe out and what to replace it with. Don’t let the ideas get away and don’t let the ideas get away from you.
Movement
Not the same as energy.
I am surprised and puzzled, often, at how little actually happens in large organizations. What does happen, like politics (because of internal politics) is typically balanced by something else and so nothing really happens. With any organic change pods something is happening. Be refreshed and if it is good go after the balancing mechanisms…uh people. This is a spot where I might even be convinced to use the word resistance…
So what we have here is an exercise in digging up the dandelions, possibly even showing them off in a vase for awhile. What you do not want is to fire up the lawnmower and plow them down like weeds.
One persons weed is another’s salad.
 Just the fact the there is a role for CM on any given initiative, program or project is a plus. It sends a signal to participants that the transition from one thing to another is complicated and difficult enough to warrant sheparding by a person rather than just through communication or project management.
As a Conduit
A CM resource external, internal or a designated leader will consider it their responsibility to make connections that are obvious, but for some reason are not happening. Leader to stakeholder and vice-versa, function to function, peer to peer across functions, internal to external resources to name a few.
As a Leadership Guide
This an extension of the conduit plus. It is difficult in organizations to get valuable feedback as a leader and to give the same as an employee/stakeholder. The CM often falls into the role of coach/mentor/advisor between the leading and the hands on work.
As a Communication Lever
In the same third party sense the communication for a change process can weave in operational interaction in a safer and more approachable manner than mandates and barked orders.
As an Organizational Assessment avenue
The process of gathering information for the end state descriptions reveals a wealth of data about the organization. Companies rarely have an avenue for objectively evaluating their people, structure and process. CM (with a good practitioner) shines a light in all three areas.
As an Operational Builder
If Change Management is an entity within the organization all of the above combined with the regular change management activities and expectations can address efficiency, collaboration, cross functional accountability and overall connection between strategy and implementation.
- 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…
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.
In business/life people have to work together to figure out, to make a plan, to accomplish tasks to get to results. I start with that assumption and follow with the assumption that every organization has a process and a structure to get to the results sentence period.
Is this naive? As in having or expressing innocence and credulity.
It turns out the process and the structure are always there. The effectiveness and application of both is the issue. Enter Operational Change Management. Everyone who has anything to do with CM will agree that at its core it is about illustrating a goal, having energy behind the goal, getting participation, following the change path and reaching an end state. Well look at that. Those steps match perfectly with the core operational steps. And I might add look like the hundreds of models I have seen out there.
If it is this simple why is it that it never (yes I chose that word on purpose) happens?
Each of the steps in my first paragraph have major stumbling blocks thanks to people and money. CM done well, at higher levels connects the two. CM that is not done well seems to only address the people (and process). I have yet to see an organization (and few practitioners with the understanding and visibility needed) that can weave this connection.
Maybe it is just too big a task? Maybe it is because organizations do not have anyone, or any entity, responsible for the gluing? Maybe it is because the attempt is either first made internally without external help or done solely on a model from an external influence? Am I naive in thinking it is entirely possible to weave this people, process, money and method web?
I am trying to think of the title for this operational change management person…
VP of the Big Picture?
SVP of PM (people and money)?
Den mother (father)?
Ah, you say, what about VP or Organizational Effectiveness, VP of People, COO? First one is process, second is people, third one is close. CEO… maybe (in a naive perfect world).
I am not going to work toward an answer here. A solution though is running around in my head since we have laid out the root causes… I can just picture being able to pour something out of a can and have it spread over and through the organization. The something would carry languaging, process, structure, collaboration, method and B-12 to all the right places.
I tell my kids, “always check your math”.
In this equation the augend and the addend are less than the sum.
Let’s take a look at where this equation fails in real life.
It is amazing how fast organizations (and, sorry leaders too) communicate before they actually have something to communicate. Or worse, before they check the message.
Communications is absolutely essential to the the CM equation, but there must be a plan. A plan for developing the message (the failed equation spends an inordinate amount of on time line planning). We are missing end state description, place and time, connection to process and acknowledgment (and possibly feedback loops and mistake call outs- there are mini equations built into the whole).
Training is also absolutely essential. It is fairly obvious for technology implementations and skill switches (or add-ons) but less so for cultural and transformational change. It is safe to say, IMHO, that every change initiative has a learning, mentoring, knowledge transfer about the process of change for people and business.
So…
Where ST is skill training, CMT is change process awareness and KT is knowledge transfer = A good start toward the training category.
Where ES is end state description(s), P/T is place and time communication for task and role, PC is process communication (how and when) and ACK is acknowledgment (of effort and movement toward the end state) = A good start toward the communications category.
And then I tell my kids math is never as simple as it looks…
… and warning sign number one.
Because, for me, it is, “what do I need to know?”.
Doing before knowing is the mark of an inexperienced consultant (or the forte of a contractor). This question from a client is an indicator that some knowledge exchange between the two of us may just be the answer.
So what will I need to know?
The most important need to know is the description of the end state (not the current state, not the future state and not the black hole gap in between). There is a whole lot of why built in. This is not the why you are thinking of. It is not the “why” business case for the change (that will help in the overall description). It is not the “why we need this now” version. It is not the why we need this at this point. It is certainly not a search for justification. And it is not a question that gets a quick answer of because.
It is the why someone would be willing to participate and contribute to the effort. It is the why someone would want to be involved. It is the why the organization needs this (maybe a humanized and respectful business case). It is the why the future will be better when the end state is reached- yes a journey, yes difficult maybe, yes all of those things inherent in change- pretty and not so.
If I have marketed well in my own work , the owner of the change, the keeper of the cash, the leader the light shines on (the glaring one, not necessarily the one for the award ceremony) will be the person to open the gate for the path to the information.
The need to know will-
- Reveal the org. chart formal or hidden
- Illuminate structural flaws in the organization
- Illuminate cultural flaws in the organization
- Alert the hamsters on the wheels (which stop and look, which keep mindlessly running on the wheel?)
- Provide a broad stroke of the history of change in the organization
- Clue me in to the connection between leadership, stakeholders, vision and satisfied end states
- Provide clarity on the ability to take, give and assume responsibility and accountability in the organization
- The horizontal, vertical, diagonal and circular connections (that’s the hidden org. chart) present or not
Ok I concede this will create a list…
- A packed schedule of short interviews with a strategic mix of stakeholders.
- Somewhere in the mix of number one- a visual spider web chart of connections current, and connections needed, to first create and then get to, the end state.
- A list of the communication vehicles current (and connected to the change) and missing.
- My own secret list of movers, shakers, gatekeepers and agnostics (in general, not necessarily related to this change).
As with most clients maybe not what you were expecting?
Horizontal change must have change management present from the very beginning.
The lack of this is, I think, the major reason initiatives do not get the traction they need. It is frustrating, surprising and disconcerting that almost all of the projects, programs and initiatives I see in organizations have broken this rule.
Here are some reasons-
- Historical approaches
- The insular, siloed nature of organizational work
- Internal power grabbing
- A misunderstanding (ignorance?) about what the process of change is and what it takes to guide it forward
- Organizational design and structure
Let’s take four and five together since those are the responsibility of the first horizontal. It is very hard for anything in business to work in compartments anymore. To do so excludes information, collaboration and innovation. Tasks within a bigger picture can get checked off quicker without external influences, but groups of tasks inevitably rely on input from outside the compartment.
People change, get motivated and participate much quicker and with a higher level of interest when they share work, experience and difficulties with others (especially if they are different in some way so as to provide support from a different angle).
If the structure of the organization and its work does not support this interaction it is difficult to move change anywhere but up and down a vertical plane (certainly not horizontal).
“We collaborate and share all the time, that is not a problem for us”… Really. You think so? Where is this official? (and please do not mention committees, that is a post on its own).
One, two and three have the same core problem- a linear viewpoint that sees the future roll out as a series of steps to be managed and controlled (even if that is for Human Nature). One is a force feeding, two is the building of mini great walls and three looks a little like medieval Kings, Queens and Dukes trying to kill each other off.
Front loading change with knowledgeable strategically focused practitioners can create the horizontal ties needed for success early on. Creating a change group before the big initiatives begin is better.
I can safely say, in my experience at least, 99.9% of initiatives bring in CM people too late. The practioners that have a measure of success under those constraints are truly miracle workers.
To get a better understanding of change that runs horizontal think of a spider web.
At the core of the web is the Corporate Strategy. For this to work we must assume (and a big assumption it is) that the strategy makes sense and can be described, communicated and measured. Radiating out- each with a bigger spread, more influence and more scope, from the core, are projects, programs, initiatives and transformation. The gossamer threads of connection between the four are the functional units of the organization. Spun off from the edge of the web are the external entities (partners, suppliers, customers, the business community etc).
Everything is connected. The sensitive nature of the web means that all movement will be felt, both good and not so.
A change catalyst group made up of internal and external resources rests near the center, near the strategy, near the leaders who control spending, end state visioning and initial leadership. If you were to insist on laying this web over your org. chart the first circle off the hub of the web would be the first horizontal; the precise center, the CEO and the board.
Some observations-
An experienced and intuitive Change practitioner is used to spinning informal versions of this web- they will sense and know the effect of every movement.
Internal consultants rarely are empowered to do so, but are exceptional at managing the web after it is built.
I have not played with this much, but there is no reason this web cannot have a smaller version within functions (or geography or units…?).
While the CCG (or your own crafty acronym) sits near strategy it runs out along all of the threads and circles the web in each of the four change areas, radiating out to make external connections and working with leaders to build and repair connections (see the upper left corner of our diagram).
With dots throughout the web this could actually be THE org. chart.
|
|
