|
|
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
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
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
There is a cycle of give and take, supply and demand, within change management that is rarely addressed and often missed. I think it starts with underlying assumptions about what a leader is and what a worker does. It mirrors, in ways, the ongoing grand argument in US politics about “job creators”. What drives the economy demand or capital? Consumers or Business Owners? Do things “trickle down” or filter up (or rise up) because of energetic demand?
I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.
That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.
Nick Hanauer, Entrepreneur (founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. in 2007)
Our change parallel:
The “job creators” for change are the owners (interesting it could be the very same people in both examples…). Demand is the energy of the stakeholders (and willingness, and perspective). By themselves through the power of their role leaders will not make change happen- they are not change accomplishers.
What will lead to the accomplishment of change is a feedback loop between those who will do the hands on work and those who envision the change. The more connection there is between stakeholders and their work to leaders and their vision the smoother goes the realization of change.
Back to our comparison:
“Trickle down” when it comes to change has been a complete failure. High paid leader (the “rich” person for this version of the analogy) gets grand idea, passes it off to the next level and waits for the spoils to spread through the organization. I can tell you from my experience whatever is supposed to have trickled down is considerably spoiled by the time it gets to the end stakeholder.
I will admit organic change has not done much better- arguably “trickle up”.
What does work is the virtuous cycle of clarity, explanation, application and energy that comes with leaders understanding demand, in the change context, and doing what they can to feed and encourage that energy and focus.
Leaders, owners of change, understand that you are not change creators- facilitators, messengers, inspirerors maybe, but not creators/accomplishers. Pay attention to that virtuous cycle that comes when stakeholders understand change, can apply it to themselves in some way and can place themselves in context with the work and the end state.
Technorati Tags: C level, CEO, change awareness, Change Strategy, engagement, Executive, job creators, leader, stakeholders, trickle down, trickle up, vision to work
A while back I did a tongue in cheek look at models.
Thanks to all the certification machines out there and the unemployment rate there is a flood of new, inexperienced (you can tell by the questions they ask in Forums) “change management practitioners”. It seems the first thing they want to know about are the different models to use. Big indicator that they really do not understand Change Management.
Because there are a lot of horns out there tooting as loud as possible- one that insists Change Management falls within project management (recipe for failure for anything big). I have never been one to blow my horn loud and for the sole purpose that someone listens to it (or spends money to hear it again). I shout when something does not make sense and no one seems to be saying anything (even though it is right in front of their eyes and they agree).
Well isn’t that a little like true Change Management? It is about calling out things so you can get to make sense end states. PS most of the models out there, on purpose, by design, do not do that. Most of the clients out there LOVE those kind of models because they really do not need to change much. You are not that kind of client/leader or practitioner, right?
So here (the actual model with hyperlink explanations for each piece) is the Vision to Work model:
I created it as a representation of End State Focus and Makes Sense Change. I did not, like many modelers, create a model that illustrated how change was being approached already. It amazes me how many models are created to support status quo- pretending otherwise.
Call me out marketers, but I have never touted the model specifically- the perspective yes, maybe the approach, but not the model itself. Leaders, hesitate when a consultant you are looking at whips out their model and pushes the deliverables within- they are playing to your status quo. (You do not want that, remember?)
Here is another funny thing about models. They seem to be frameworks to teach someone how to practice change management. Senior practitioners often end up creating similar paperwork (say stakeholders assessments), but it is more record keeping of the things they have found rather than a map for what to look for.
Prosci is the perfect example. A mid level practitioner could follow the model to a tee and get to the end (and I don’t mean END STATE) befuddled, confused and surprised at the failure. Anyone can sit down and draw a picture, but few of those creations end up at Christies. Anyone can go through the steps for change management; few can get to the things and people that must change for end state attainment.
The Change Management Arena has gotten a little scary this year. The emphasis on models and the strange evangelism (by, judging from their profiles, new and junior practitioners) for the companies that market the hardest is not a good sign for big transformational change. If you are a senior leader looking for a consultant be wary and ask yourself if you and your organization are REALLY capable of the change you seek. If not go with the models and the cheap rate. If so be informed and talk to those practitioners who speak with a softer voice.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, C level, CEO, Change Design, change failure, Change Strategy, External Consultant, Fees, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, vision to work
“Start, join and win campaigns for change.” Change.org slogan.
This is just awesome.
When money, power, prestige and status quo carry more weight than the individual there has to be a balance somehow. When the balance is achieved (or at least more fair) then it actually becomes easier for leaders (the good moral ones that want many to benefit from gain) to effect change. In corporate environments grass roots, organic efforts that support leadership fair much better and are more sustainable than the few-control-the-power kind of change (attempts).
Business is business and for one group to get ahead another will likely feel the effect. The ability to petition leadership (in the case of Change.org it is social, there are organic petitioning options in organizations too [leveraging the conduit between external consultant and senior leader to name an easy one]) gives each group a chance to leapfrog over another.
Not all rosy though…
Since people will inherently disagree, if you put enough of them together, there can be a lot of competing petitions. Best example is the initiative process in California (like proposition 13 which resulted in one neighbor paying in taxes in a year what another pays in a month).
This year may well be the year of the individual as part of a group (versus the everyone is in this for themselves attitude we have lived with for awhile). Collective efforts should not just be reserved for social and political issues. Collaboration (with supporting strong leadership and decision making) is powerful and profitable.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, Change Strategy, horizontal change management, petition for change, political change, social change
Viable:
1. vivid; real; stimulating, as to the intellect, imagination, or senses
2. practicable; workable: a viable alternative.
Viability:
the capacity to operate or be sustained: The viability of the company was guaranteed by the success of its new product.
Dictionary.com
Viable Change
Is change that can grab participation.
It is change that challenges, stimulates and helps individuals to grow.
Change that is viable stretches strategy, people, available tactics and leadership.
Viable change can be vivid, real or stimulating and it can be vivid, real AND stimulating. If it does so in connection with intellect and imagination then, just maybe, the end state itself will also be viable.
Change Viability
If so then that end state, that result of the change should be sustainable. The new environment should be able to operate for the benefit and profit of both individuals (all, not just leadership) and the organization of stakeholders, owners and shareholders.
An important component of Change Viability is operations. Viable Change to have Change Viability must entwine with operations. It must be so connected to imagination and a workable future that operations adapts and grows with it.
Viable change and change that is viable must be inextricably mixed with operations. Then it can be workable and practical (to the extent that grand change is practical in the moment) and stimulate at an individual level.
Technorati Tags: change management strategy, Change Strategy, vision to work
This is part two for horizontal change strategy questions. Part 1 asked Consultant to Client questions.
I am assuming the client is the owner (pays for the change, is seen by stakeholders as the top executive connected to the change). Later posts will look at implementary clients and their questions.
- What has your role been for change in the past?
- Is change management a science or art?
- What tools do you use?
- Define change management
- What do you think keeps change from happening?
What has your role been for change in the past?
Depending on the type of change you are pursuing you may look for different answers to this question.
I this is a big, high, broad (truly in need of a horizontal approach) transformation you want the answer to be: facilitator, mentor, consultative support, planner, organizer, rover, “disconnected” external resource. You are looking for an external voice and perspective to help scout the path, alert you to obstacles and help to build YOUR ownership of the change.
If this is smaller horizontal change (say within a big function) the answer can be: Director of Change Management, Change Management Consultant, add your own internal monikers or the first answer. Because change is about a new status quo (no matter how big or small) I personally think you HAVE to have an external guide.
You might want to add some extra questions in about going native, were they in a contracting role (they will be much less consultative), how big/how high/ how important were the initiatives, did they work with clients who understand change, etc.
Is change management a science or art?
Perspective is crucial for change management. It guides assumptions which then dictates approach. Think of the positive people you know. Think of the negative people you know (sorry to make you do that). Which one do you want to work with you?
Those who see CM as more art than science will fall in the positive category (yes generalization). The “scientists” in the bunch not so much so. What is important is how they will be received by the stakeholders in relation to the change. Stakeholders usually feel like guinea pigs with the scientists. In fairness they may feel like they landed at a hippie retreat with the artists.
The answer you want is, “I think CM is an art practiced best by those who understands where science might fit in.”
Smart CM artists know when to use science. By definition someone with a scientific perspective must be less creative and group and lump things together to support their hypothesis (in this case that means their perspective). People, individuals, your stakeholders, see themselves as unique- that “lumping” thing does not usually go over too well.
What tools do you use?
If they are quick to answer, call for the next in line.
If they say, it depends, follow through with some more questions.
Why do you use tools? Or why that specific tool?
What is it you leverage with the use of the tool?
Is this a package of tools that follow your methodology? (If yes, consider putting that second consultant in the batting box).
What you are looking for is a consultant that uses tools to build toward the end state, not just to check off a task, to look busy or to cater to mid level leaders (they love tools and deliverables because that is how you measure their performance). An example: the ubiquitous stakeholder analysis (yes I do use versions of this tool). The stakeholder analysis is a way to see who is involved in the project, when they should be included and to what level that inclusion is realistic. To fill in all those blanks means a lot of interviewing, asking questions, explaining CM and the reason for the tool (and yes maybe a deliverable) and connecting with stakeholders.
When it comes to the tool question look for follow through. No stakeholder ever participated wholeheartedly in change because of a tool.
Define change management
You could ask this first to see how the tool/science/art perspective comes out in the explanation.
If that trio does not come out, next in line, they do not understand change management in context with the past, today and tomorrow.
The answer should have to do with end states rather than gap filling; something about management being a strange word connected to change; a sentence or two about individuals and competency; and a little about where CM is heading.
You want someone who can pull from the past, mix in their own expertise (that came from experience, study and application) and apply that to your specific scenario. (That sentence is actually what change is- history, competency, end state).
What do you think keeps change from happening?
This will be revealing.
And again it could be the first question (especially if your line of consultants to talk to is long).
If they say people, if they mention resistance, if they put blame strictly on leaders, if they miss process, structure and competency… next in line.
What keeps change from happening are all the things built in to your organization that reinforce status quo. Once those things are built, working on the people (you know those “resistors”) is putting a band-aid on a deep wound.
If they respond, “in your organization?” and then say, “it could be you”, hire them.
Designing a horizontal change strategy, especially if a change entity is to be built as part of the plan, requires a consultant with an incredibly broad experience set, and a competency set to match. That same broad strategic expert will also need an empathetic, individual, tactical perspective to help you come up with a strategy that leads you to end states and can be executed.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, Change Design, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, End State, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, vision to work
“Questions to ask for Horizontal Change Management Strategy” was a search to our site. Intriguing it is, and the seed for multiple blog posts.
- What is the organizations change history?
- How “visible” is the CEO?
- What does your performance management system measure?
- What does your org. chart look like and do you understand its significance?
- To what extent has your organization devolved into organic interaction?
What is the organizations change history?
History is the foundation for change.
In the positive sense it is a series of successes and mistakes that made the organization profitable and successful. Less positive it is a pattern, or set of patterns, that does not work for the future. A horizontal change strategy must be malleable. If that is not in the organizations history lots of questions will have to turn into dialogue and plans to change patterns.
A subset question here would be, “What is your (client) change history?”. How this client (I am assuming for this post that the client is the owner of the change) has dealt with change on their own and with this company is an absolutely crucial element for horizontal change.
How “visible” is the CEO?
How visible in terms of people actually seeing them or reading things from them and visibility connected to work efforts. Is this a founder CEO who has his/her mitts on everything that happens in the organization? Is this a new CEO? Is this a CEO that came from an acquiring company (that now has the grand vision of togetherness and cross functional collaboration)?
The visibility of the CEO may have to adapt as part of the horizontal change strategy. The range will be from more visibility less hands on to more hands on less visibility depending on where the organization is in its history and how this CEO fits into that picture (and of course what the end state might look like).
What does your performance management system measure?
The first question is really, “Do you have a performance management system?”. The answer is always yes which is too bad.
Do you measure deliverables? Do you measure short term (not good for horizontal strategy- not good for any strategy really)? Do you measure individually? Are your measures subjective? Do you measure to retain or cull?
Your PM system is the most crucial element for horizontal change. Not addressing and revamping it is almost a no-go for horizontal alignment.
What does your org. chart look like and do you understand its significance?
Yes you have an org. chart even if it is not printed or posted.
You have the formal version and you have the informal version(s). If you are lucky the informal is more horizontal than you expected. I often find a lot of organic bartering and exchange in the middle of those informal charts.
The significance of these two types of people maps is important to horizontal change.
Are you calling our your silo-ed nature with the placement of the boxes? Is there anything in that chart that shows cross collaborative connections?
Don’t think that you have to somehow switch to a lovely flat line of boxes because everyone is going to work together in a matrix (the matrix does not exist- anywhere except in a garage with a startup and even that is short lived to the point where the garage door must open). Functions are IMPORTANT. It is within the functional structure that talent, competency and skill shine- especially at the individual level.
You can keep a functional hierarchy with horizontal strategy. It just takes some crafting and messaging to have that work effectively.
To what extent has your organization devolved into organic interaction?
See the second question. Go back to the first. Has the middle of your company taken on a life of its own? Are things scaling up? (scaling up is the process of getting permission from leaders through “executive presentations”- lots of patterns, most detrimental, follow this adaptation by middle managers).
Devolved in this question will likely raise feathers (not with the owner client but with those middle managers). When an organization has a lot of organic change it is a signal. It is also a light shining on the ways in which people are working around the status quo. Some of those ways will be beneficial for your horizontal change strategy, some will not. All of them will be revealing.
There are many many more questions. With consultants the questions never end.
In order to design a horizontal strategy that will actually work, questions must dig into root causes of problems and start a pattern of asking why. Why questions are a specific kind of question to elicit perspective, reasoning and feedback. They also help pull out actual fact versus subjective opinion. Many of the questions will have to do with history, the owner of the change, the CEO and individuals working to accomplish.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, Change Design, Change Strategy, corporate change management, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, vision to work
When it comes to change management and work in general in organizations there is a lot more going on than the definition reveals:
1: the quality or power of inspiring belief <an account lacking in credibility>
2: capacity for belief <strains her reader’s credibility — Times Literary Supplement>
If we assume credibility is necessary to move change forward the Websters’ definition tells us there must be the capacity for belief for stakeholders and an inspiration for belief from something (that something carries a scale to measure the quality of the inspiration).
Belief
Certainly helps for participation.
The full-bore-excited-champion of the change likely has a strong belief they are doing the right things for the right reasons. If you put all the stakeholders in a spreadsheet and ordered them by participation level, again its likely that belief is a corresponding measure. If something makes sense (my core approach to change) then people will believe in it. So we might be able to say belief, to some extent, is essential for change.
As stakeholders it may not be possible to build that belief individually. You may need facts. You may need support. You may need a leader- someone who can inspire belief.
It may be important though for us to have the capacity to believe. Or at least the ability to believe within the current scenario matched up against the change.
This is the typical entry point for a change management consultant. History, track records and perception must be considered in developing an explanation, guiding leaders and building the capacity to believe. At the same time CM’s are building the competency to inspire belief.
Some separate thoughts:
There are times when a leader is a charismatic powerful conduit for belief. That’s good (unless they are serving Kool-Aid with the inspiration).
There are times when stakeholders just want to believe. (It only takes one sip of the Kool-Aid to fix misdirected belief though).
There are changes that do not necessarily require belief, and stakeholders who will participate without the power of belief.
I think people want to believe in something. CM’s and internal leaders should understand and language believing in change at a deeper level.
Let’s get back to our word.
“Is this credible.”
“Are they credible.”
“Looking at this change and those guiding it makes me incredulous.” Three random, totally made up quotes, that I am sure I have heard many times.
A little credibility building list for you:
- The change HAS to makes sense.
- The change has to be supported- by leaders, by budget, by timing.
- The change has to be explained and carry real facts (not fudged numbers) to build a foundation for the pragmatics to believe.
- The change has to have emotional appeal (hint: not all changes really do, but at some level they do for individuals- leaders should make that connection and communicate their own emotion).
- As a leader you have to have empathy and you have to do a good job (it is up to you to decide the measure of “good”).
- The organization has to have structure and process that makes it possible to believe in possibility. If it doesn’t then something has to change. P.S.: You can get quick belief with THAT kind of change.
- This is not church- faith will carry you a very short distance.
Change cannot happen without credible leaders, a credible change and systems to support the ability to believe.
Technorati Tags: C level, CEO, change awareness, change management strategy, Change Strategy, engagement, Executive, organizational change, resistance to change, stakeholders
|
|
