|
|
“What are you going to do with the leaders who will not change, that we have not done”, is a paraphrase of a comment that comes from almost all mid level early in the engagement conversations. Of course the reverse from senior leaders replaces leader with person.
Problems here; pay attention.
Change management is not a coercive process to convert individuals. The focus does not need to be on resistance. To direct energy to those who someone assumes will dig in is insulting to that person and should be embarrassing to the person who asked. When someone displays a resistive behavior there is a reason. If you expect to get any change to happen you must plan on addressing those reasons, which, by the way, is the answer to the question, because reasons are never really addressed-it is too painful.
Addressing those reasons open up a spiders web of connections to structure, process, performance measures and internal politics. It is amazing how quickly CM becomes transformational. Or, as is typically the case, more coercive.
My response to the question/comment is something to the effect of “what is your access to senior leadership”. It usually appears tenuous at best. My version of access is influence; theirs if often more about emails answered. If you do not have a collaborative link to leadership then not only will the empathetic approach not work, but neither will the coercive.
As an external the link to the leadership is usually the first move to address their concerns. If they are talking about the same people/person then I see an invitation for a three way collaboration rather than an unscalable wall.
Change Management at its core is a process of describing something new and different and connecting it to time and work. People respond to explanations, descriptions and new learning in different ways. That may have to do with learning styles http://tinyurl.com/2fnseg2, with interest, with workload, with promise for the future, with selfishness or with altruism. Sometimes it just has to do with catching them at the right time or off guard.
As a change agent with a full tool belt you will need to be able to draw pictures, make sounds, fill in charts, collaborate, illustrate (in pictures and words) and interact. As a client I would not hire a change agent who did not have a respectable command of-
Adobe’s Master Collection or its equivalent. http://tinyurl.com/csn4sl
Microsoft Office or its equivalent. http://tinyurl.com/yexjp89
Captivate or other training design software.
A command of CSS and HTML (not tools, but skill)
A design sense and an understanding of how design influences, grabs attention and shows concepts and connection.
The above timeline is a simple example of drawing a picture to describe, show time, place and relationship. It could be stand alone, part of a training module, the basis for changing communications or a design piece to provide structure to a written description.
The line represents time, the colors passage of both time and task, brighter colors items of significance, larger dots to show current time and place, even a pallet of colors to show teams, functions or responsibility areas.
To put all this together as a framework for guiding change takes a surprising amount of technical and people skills…
and the right tools.
I have touched on this before. The revisit is because one it is hitting me personally (stakeholders I feel your angst) and two it just hits home for what I think is the core problem in a lot of change initiatives- Assumptions.
There are so many things in life that to understand, follow through with or participate in require shared understanding. With the need for speed in shared understanding comes assumptions. If we start “from the same spot” we can move forward faster. If you already know something at a certain level I can then teach you the next step. The person or entity represented by that person that delivers must gauge the assumptive area. Two problems with that- One you must be aware of the fact that you have to gauge and two you must be good at it. Watch a good change practitioner and you will see expert in action in this area. I would venture to say it is THE core competency (I say competency because it usually requires a mix of specific skills) of a change management consultant.
So I will use CSS as my example.
I will not even try to explain this. Search “web design, float, relative, absolute” or “box model CSS” or “normal document flow” if you want to play with this example yourself. Normal Document Flow (in caps because it is apparently something really important and lets use NDF and make it something official) is our assumption. It has a lot to do with where something is supposed to be, things taking the place of that thing when you tell it to be somewhere else and people (and browsers) constantly changing the display parameters with their individual preference, software and hardware. Read that last sentence again. ‘Sound like a generic sentence for most business change?
If I am on the receiving end of this, the user, your NDF means absolutely nothing to me- by definition or importance.
If you have asked me to create this and I have always been quick with a pencil and napkin (or design software in this specific case) then not only is it hard to understand your NDF it seems a ridiculously slow way to get things done.
If the “you” person has helped in the design of this CSS thing- for many good reasons like SEO, cleaner code and that compatibility thing mentioned above- NDF is pretty important. It is the basis for a lot of the reasons the web is used. You get that.
Let’s say you are the leader in this grand NDF initiative, multiple year because it is complicated. If you do not clear the assumptions about flow (linear) and use (tactical) and creation (spatial and visual) George Washington, Lincoln and yes, many Wilson bills are going to change hands needlessly (for you, maybe not them- depending on who you chose as your consultants). You must be aware, or made aware, from the beginning ,that this assumption will be important. You must find a quiet place alone or with others to figure out how to gauge and then address knowledge, perspective and interest to learn (which then translates into participate and engage).
Here is an interesting tie to our analogy- When a demo online or a training video shows examples of “ways to position things” for CSS and somehow avoids the use of NDF as a term or assumption I get close to getting it. For the CSS person it has been “dumbed down”. For me it is using my languaging and learning style. Constantly refer to NDF and where something “would normally be” and you lose me. Another post right in this paragraph about how you move forward after you tackle the assumptions…
During the last year of difficulties, process focus and belt tightening I have encouraged those around me to take advantage of this opportunity to find all of the things you can do in business and life that cost nothing. In your personal life it is easier than you think and the list is long. As with change management it will have to do with people- both spending time with them and choosing alone time.
But how could the business side possibly have any free opportunities?
Here it may be more effective use of resources which is not necessarily free (although it could create more time or savings which is actually better than free), but it is also how you interact and connect with others.
Overlapping change with operations
Always going to the last few stakeholders at the beginning of initiatives
Leveraging humility (especially if following failed efforts- doubly if they were your own)
Raise everything up one level
Get rid of levels
Feed moral support (and visible executive support) down into initiatives during the project work
Connect horizontally between initiatives
Acknowledge other functions for their operational efforts and skills
The list is longer, much longer. It boils down to people (them not you), paying attention, preparing with others in mind, acknowledging gaps in resources and encouraging ideas that fill the gaps and connecting (earlier rather than in the moment).
Did I mention Humility?
The short and long answer is no.
The rare occasion where the two perspectives magically mesh is when an expert speaks to a receptive audience. It does not take long for ego to show itself to undue the bind.
From my days as a presentation coach to now I have seen this, explained it, created exercises to address it and cringed when a model for communication or worse change management has the “speaker” perspective.
If you expect or hope for attention, understanding and dialogue you have to understand your issue or topic from the listeners perspective. And I am not talking about the kind of listening we do for TV or music or informational lectures. The listening I am thinking of is the kind that elicits questions, that goes through an interpretation in the listeners mind and that can lead to that person transferring the knowledge and learning to someone else.
What does this have to do with change management?
If you want something to happen- say you have vision for your organization that will become a change initiative- you will automatically have the speaker perspective. After all it is very important to you. But you will need the help and participation of others. Others who probably do not have the same interest in the implementation of your vision. In order to team with them you will have to translate your vision into words they understand. To borrow from yesterday’s post- you will need to EXPLAIN.
That won’t quite get you to a true listeners perspective, but no language translation is ever perfect. The act of explaining, trying to use someone else’s language to gain understanding, is powerful. Going to the next step of facilitating dialogue toward understanding is the key to successful change management communications.
I have been shown refreshing splashes of soda in thousands of commercials over my lifetime. To date I have had one taste of Coke and one of Pepsi. Period. The ads, obviously, did/do not work. Force feed images all you want. People can actually make their own decisions based on fact and emotion (enjoyable emotion not the kind that makes you wonder how you got there).
So why do many change initiatives use a “sell the soda” marketing model?
If Change Management really does need to be sold you are starting off well behind the curve. If emotion has already been rubbed raw by that approach in the past there will be no curve (maybe a deep trough).
Explaining would be a much better approach.
My own version/model is to use the 5 W’s –Why, What, Where, When and Who. Effective Change Management communication is about putting the change in a context that makes sense from the stakeholders individual perspective. Disseminate information then connect it to work and motivation. The emotional tie will follow.
You may even get some urgency out of that glue. Not the “I have to have a soda (change) now (not sure why- just know I HAVE to have it)” urgency, but the, “that makes sense I am excited to participate” kind.
When all the connections are made and the work is done and change is visible, maybe then a tall, cool sensible glass of…water is in order.
 Touch a thread and something will happen Good change management is the process of weaving a web of communication, collaboration and understanding across, up and down and around the organization.
A good change management consultant will intuitively know what will happen when one of the silk threads of the web is grazed. Because something always happens.
An excellent, experienced consultant will teach the client the same and then tie that to business objectives.
One of the things I look for with change engagements is whether or not plans, actions, behaviors and approaches are based on assumptions. Yes, of course, always.
As a manager, how do you get your staff to buy-in to a senior management strategy when neither you nor your staff like the strategy?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/melpbe
This question on LinkedIn illustrates a common change obstacle. It has many mini obstacles, but we will take the main one. “Staff” will not support a strategy and their supervisors join in.
The chosen “best” answer is classic. Facilitation, firing, but basically communication is at the core of the problem.
Assumption-
You can guide change by “communicating” and removing resistance.
The best answer was from Ronald Klamert http://preview.tinyurl.com/luqpw5 “You can’t.” Of course you could with a lot of effort, but I like the comical terse answer.
First what does need to happen:
- Lose the resistance assumption. 99% of the time it is justified and for the stakeholder that would be 100%.
- Communication yes but between the executive strategists and employees before the strategy is decided on.
- Model that communication and the middle managers will become facilitators and translators instead of mediators.
- No strategies in a vacuum.
The Why of change comes from a blend of executive idea, early employee engagement (design not implementation) and clear end state descriptions.
So what is wrong with the Best Answer choice?
It has the feel of the typical change management approach- ownership, buy in, communication, reduce resistance.
“Age old question”, age old answer. You cannot communicate resistance away. And you are dreaming to think firing will some how change your culture.
“…process where they arrive at the same conclusion as senior staff.” Maybe just the wording but it sounds to me like senior staff knows the answer before the facilitation and communication. Classic. (take what is bad and make it worse).
Executive notice-
Employees get it. Employees understand change. They are adults. Pay attention. Empathize. Collaborate when appropriate. And as a result make smart decisions about direction. If there is a change component define the end state clearly. In other words translate your idea into scenarios that make sense from the stakeholders perspective. Realize they do not have to follow your lead, but do the above and you will have to catch up to their energy.
|
|
