|
|
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.
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.
The practice of Change Management (this is the “what I have seen” view) is missing a clear perspective of root causes. Admittedly finding the core of organizational difficulties, not just the work of CM practitioners but also day to day operations, is not easy, takes time and requires insight and empathy- a tall order. An order that should be filled though, because symptom chasing solves little, lays a bad path for the next go around and diminishes the ability of CM overall.
Here is an example-
A method focuses on resistance of stakeholders. It lays out a series of communications, surveys, assessments (readiness which strikes me as the silliest of terms if you are automatically expecting resistance) and pretty pictures to represent the data. The data is “interpreted” and then the practitioners follow their pattern of educating on “the change process”, “gaps” (CM methods love to include gaps), transitions (ditto for this) and the five stages (or 8 steps or 10 boxes) that stakeholders must and will adhere to/pass through to accomplish the change. Everything that is gathered and collected illustrates symptoms, results of the change difficulty.
To get anywhere and to truly be successful at the end state causes need to be addressed.
Short of me (and it is truly an uphill battle) I have never seen a practitioner who takes that information gathered (because despite its poor perspective and damaging assumptions does gather some good data- I love data as much as the next practitioner) and uses it to address the root causes that have created the symptoms that produce the “resistance” that live in the house that Jack built…(I couldn’t resist).
Very often (here’s where I would like to have some good data) strategy-poor or lack thereof-is a root cause. Equally powerful is a performance system that runs counter to the objectives of the change. Culture that has not been molded to be innovative or at least receptive to enhancement can be another stifling root cause.
Therefore the first step of any major horizontal, “transformational” (if you like that synonym) change is to look with a magnifying glass (at the first horizontal I might add- might as well start the real change from the get go) at strategy, the performance reward equation and the good and not so of the organizations culture. That view through the looking glass will illuminate symptoms before they even appear sans expensive, time consuming and often detrimental data gathering.
Canadians get the Change Management thing!
I am coming across Canadians in forums, on LinkedIn on the web and at conferences and I think they deserve a shout out. With them I have been able to have conversations about change entities, first level horizontal change, defining of roles, responsibilities within CM, the weakness of historic models, the old fashioned nature of CM practitioners (not a good perspective for CM) along with the many other things I have talked about here and in my other writings. And they get it!
The rub though is that they are having a hard time transferring that understanding to leadership and clients. Most feel CM is in its infancy up north. To that I say you are one big step ahead of us (US). We have the problem of a longer track record of CM (I can’t call it maturity though- I still think CM is in its infancy here too) and little true innovative thinking and action on the part of firms and clients. The innovation from the consulting side is not hitting its mark because of the power in the middle of organizations to suggest, pilot and eventually own approach.
So Canadian clients and consultants take advantage of your awareness and shorter track record to do CM well and right the first go around.
A fictitious situation-
A big company buys a smaller company.
Big company lets small company retain name and separateness (in location and operation).
Later, much later, big company decides it is time for, now viewed as little company, to assimilate (and that is a nice way of saying it).
Big company has done lots of functional one off initiatives, but never tied them together, or illuminated one individual one.
So transformational change hat on- this is an excellent opportunity to call out the use of change management, use that leverage to model horizontal work for the organization as a whole and throw in development, mentoring and guiding of potential change leaders at multiple levels.
Just knowing change is being guided and that a framework will be created to do it again draws participants in. Having an external resource as a mediative influence is powerful (I should capitalize that). If the change this horizontal, whole system leverage is tied to is a difficult one (in our case assimilation- all would say that is difficult from both companies) then the illumination first on CM distracts focus to a shared purpose. The difficult initiative can then be languaged as the place to shine the light. It becomes more about exploring change together than tackling THE change.
It is not going to trick anyone true. This is the type of thing though that can be called out for what it is- a way to understand the process of change and therefore make it a little easier to deal with the actual change. And move forward with a better understanding than would have been present with the one off approach.
Maybe it is my perspective, but few of the engagements I come across for change management are truly stand alone. I would venture to say that every initiative in some way touches the whole. Or at least ventures out of its original vertical function in a horizontal (or diagonal) direction.
Time, awareness and history stand in the way.
Time because timelines are rushed and it is not yet common practice to bring in change management at the idea. Time because making horizontal connections takes some, in fact a lot. Time because it is measured by task rather than result (and in short increments).
Awareness because there is a best practice mentality from practitioners and clients (especially middle of the organization versions) that is based on poor assumptions. Then those assumptions and best practices language inappropriately (resistance based on reason and common sense rather than emotion is not resistance; it is practicality). Awareness, actually lack of broader awareness, is not there to connect the time and expenditure used on each individual initiative into a whole piece that feeds the operation of the organization and seeds positive (as in profitable) patterns for the future.
History stands in the way. Which is a little weird since it is over and done how could it actually stand in the way. It does, of course, when history illustrates mistakes. It then becomes present and a false measure for the future. Change Management is difficult to say the least if there is a track record of “failure”.
I see so many opportunities for organizations to leverage change management. And they slip away.
Change Management is a dance between keeping that which is comfortable and worthwhile and opening up new possibilities, profit and value.
Think of the status quo as a fenced in field. Despite the fact that the fence can easily be knocked down there is still safety. There is at least the appearance of, safety.
Now add a gate that can let in new influences.
You might also want to use the gate for letting things out (or free?).
Does that gate need a lock? And if you think it does I would question the strength (and need for) the fence first.
Change in your organization and the “management” of that ebb and flow is a powerful leverage point for using the gate and its path. Change that acknowledges and uses the status quo for positive profit and improvement is change that people follow. The smart change agent is a little like the sentry at the gate balancing all that can pass or should not pass in either direction.
Change is so loaded with energy you can almost smell the flame.
What will you, along with your change practitioner need to do to start, contain, fuel and manage that fire?
Start-
Change can begin spontaneously from hidden sparks of energy, It can be the result of an external environmental influence, like a lightning bolt in nature. Or it can be a perfectly built campfire ready for a match to begin the controlled burn. Be aware of how change can, will and could start in your organization and take the steps to have resources and process to deal with the different catalysts for energy.
Contain-
The fire begins and there is very often little time for precise control. That is the nature of organizational change since it involves individuals seasoned and not (in our case seasoning does not necessarily mean the wood will burn bright). Laying down appropriate borders though can ring the fire with protection. In an organization that may be separating the functional tasks needed to build to the end state as project streams.
Fuel-
My personal favorite. When we have our backyard s’more fests friends are surprised at how easy it is for me to light the match and quickly have a perfect campfire. Easy it is not for it requires a balance of quick combustion (paper), something to carry and hold the flame (kindling), larger pieces to sustain the heat and energy and oxygen (which the fire can quickly suck away and extinguish). Change in an organization requires an idea, a senior champion, middle of the organization empathy and management skills and money and resources directed appropriately.
Manage-
Once the fire is lit, contained and fed when needed there is often a little time to sit back and enjoy the power and beauty of the coals and flame. Well contained and with available fuel the fire can be extended, increased or if necessary squelched. In the organization phases of the change process can run as separate fires of their own to be joined with or passed on to the next. As long as the agents strategic and implementary understand the end state and the connections in time and place that must occur the fire can be managed.
What does the energy behind change look like in your organization?
Is anyone tending the fire?
What entity, element or approach do you have in your organization that links the separate parts together? And no you the CEO or senior leader does not count (although you do get credit if you assumed that was your responsibility).
HR would like to have that ownership and there is a history in the literature trying to prove and justify their role. But because of the nature of many of the HR functions, governance, performance, compensation etc, it works best as a transactional function.
Enter OD, Organizational Development, which was an attempt to separate out the people part of HR. It has its place as a training, development, mentoring entity but it is typically too people oriented to effectively deal with business strategy.
The PMO (Project Management Organization) in many organizations tries to take the reins and be the unifier. The problem there is that they are used to and excellent at the control of process, timelines and tasks. Unity and connection do not come from control. If it does temporarily it dissolves quickly with lack of attention to people, human nature and disparity of approach and perspective.
It could be a COO role but operations will run into the same versatility constraints as the PMO.
The Corporate Communications function also tries to shepard this role in large organizations. The need for a human touch, fairness, mediation and compromise makes this a bad fit. This function tends to present information with a marketing twist to support branding and corporate presence (even with their internal communications). Stakeholders see right through this veneer and are quick to hit delete buttons on all messages.
What is needed is an entity made up of skills and competencies from each of these areas. A clean balance of business and people, structure and process, method and approach.
and so Change Management
Not change management as it is currently rolled out in most organizations (with a project focus) but change management directly tied to corporate strategy. An entity that is responsible for the understanding, the communication and the compromise needed to connect the first horizontal to shared goals. One that feeds back missteps, successes, insights, ideas and innovation.
With ownership of initiatives by high level leaders and a clear and apparent partnership between the first horizontal and the change entity, trust can be built with employees so that future change is more predictable. Or at least less unpredictable.
|
|
