|
|
||
|
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 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.
This is a touchy area I realize. Let’s take a stand-outside big picture look. + :
- :
Grass roots organic change can be a great thing for accomplishing a short list of objectives or a small change that has real time constraints. The energy and the shared commitment makes for teamwork which gets work done fast (this is the core scenario for efficient business change). The excitement and commitment pull more people in which can (I emphasize can because there are some negatives here too) increase collaboration horizontally. If it works it can be a great model for the middle, of the change process. Which is my transition to the potential negatives. There is a very real threat to the way those responsible and accountable direct work (leadership in general and potentially a threat to a single individual high up). The way the original group goes about the change process will typically do one of two things- either grab a single approach from something/someone well marketed, say a book or grab everything from everywhere and create, well, a “grass roots” methodology. If function 2 happens to be in the same situation with a different change of their own we suddenly have methodology ownership. Grass roots change (and worse change design) is reactionary. Explaining to do I realize. From my external viewpoint dropped into the organization at a higher level this is what I see (typically)- The grass roots energy starts as a reaction to the fact that leadership does not have a handle on change. The organization does not have a guiding entity, group of resources and approach (I like that word better than methodology it seems more human, realistic and practical) to change that ties to strategy, energy and work. That is a vacuum combination for an attitude of doing it yourself. Grass roots organizational energy, as I see, is typically an illustration of strategy poorly communicated or strategy non-existent (sorry harsh, how about strategy weak). This is in terms of goals to work and demands (still work) to workload. It is amazing how many times the discussions around the grass roots efforts have to do with building a strategy. Makes me wonder who will be, or is, in “charge”… Change Management has picked up a buzz in the last couple of years. Everyone who is trying to climb internally wants to be the keeper of the design. In one organization I worked with they had no less than six separate “design of change” grass roots groups going (with three big firms and a host of independents suffering a Pavlovian reaction like dogs at a cafe). A little like many businesses competing in a new space- what follows is merger mania with the loudest (not necessarily the best) winning the race. Tying it all back together to something that works for the organization as a whole- a horizontal approach- is a change initiative in itself (surprisingly or maybe not so, typically started at a grass roots level). What can you learn as a leader (or a grass roots barnburner if you strayed here) from this fly on the wall post? Nurture anything that is grass roots. In the process be realistic about why it is happening in the first place. Do not be afraid of a high level group, entity and approach that can manage the connection between you (and your high level leader peers) your stakeholders and strategy fulfilled.
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.
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.
Middle of the organization change tends to draw clients and consultants into an exercise in creating "engagement". If somebody likes to run they run. Good luck "engaging" someone who does not. The core problem is that most organizations do not truly have OCM (Organizational Change Management) built into their corporate strategy. So "change engagement" tends to spend time addressing symptoms rather than root causes. "Un-engagement", lack of sponsorship and hit and miss buy-in are the cough, the sneeze and the runny nose. Not connecting strategy to competency and not filling in competency for strategy is the cold that creates the system. In keeping with that analogy, if you market the cold medications effectively you can stay busy- because the still-sick-patient will feel great. In that scenario you will be forced to make the mistakes on purpose ("manage" to match your marketing, pretty forms to fill out and change agents that are affordable in the middle of the organization). As a client it makes sense to keep yourself healthy- corporate strategy that blends business and people, assume senior change consultants have a quiver full of forms/approach and to budget and pay for experience. |
||
|
Copyright © 2010 Vision to Work, Inc. - All Rights Reserved |
||
