|
|
Things begin to pick up for business (less fear, willingness to spend hoarded cash, new competition appearing from garages- not sure which is the cause, but things are picking up in the change arena) and the revisiting begins. Change anew. Except some of it is the programs that were cancelled a year or more ago. How is restarted change different?
History Doubled
The ability to move change forward is always effected by previous attempts (bad or good). To start something that did not finish on the first attempt is potentially tempting fate. If, in our current case, the economy can be blamed for the earlier stop, starting again just slots right into the business environment.
Care must be taken with communication for a restart because, excuses aside, a mistake was made. Sure, as a leader you do not think so – it was all part of the plan. The problem is to stakeholders it must not have been a good plan. Now the Pandora’s box of trust, faith in leaders (which is a specific kind of trust), I told you so’s and the appearance of mishaps is opened.
Address the double history issue with crystal clear as transparent as possible communications. You might want to recheck and possibly rethink the new plan- the last thing you want is two historical mishaps.
Second Chances
Everybody believes in second chances. You have one if you are restarting change. Some of your work may already be completed. Redo work can be done better. Mistakes can be corrected. And acknowledged. Which leads me to the “be careful”.
By necessity taking this second chance is assuming empathy. There is a difference between restarted change and any other- the empathy has to flow from the stakeholders to the leaders. Empathy should (I always hesitate to use this word, but it fits now) go from leaders to stakeholders, that is a given. To go both ways sets up an interesting dynamic. Maybe I should have said an effective dynamic because the core of relationships connected to accomplishments is shared empathy. Give it a double dose on your second chance restarts.
Rebuilding is impressive
Taking what you have, envisioning something different and better and then layering in additions is smart change. As with any remodel matching the old lines to the new can be difficult. Because that is an obvious component of rebuilding/remodeling everyone is impressed when the result is seamless. With your restart this is an opening for a view of the end state that includes overcoming and tackling obstacles.
For that to make sense as an explanation there must be honesty, transparency and camaraderie around stops and starts and the end states they can create.
With that you can restart and rebuild at the same time.
Change can be the overall time line of moving from one thing to another, or old to new. It can be the moment the switch happened- you actually move into that new home. It can be the process itself of transforming and changing behavior. It can mean movement, perspective, action, technology and/or behavior.
Transition might well be the same if semantics are not your game.
As an English undergrad words and languaging are an environment all their own for me.
So I like to think of transition as that sweet period- sometimes short sometimes a longer transformation- from the end of the old to the beginning of the new. Perhaps walking through the door of that new home…
With change management and the process of guiding change that sweet spot is something to capture as difficult, discomforting, then interesting, then satisfying and if more of those transitions may be in the future, contemplative and measured.
Change is always about action. Or for the historical, resistance approaches, inaction.
For action to happen there must be some stimulus that gets it started and keeps it going. The trigger/switch at the individual level is motivation. That foundation out of the way, who is in charge of the triggers?
The Individual
You would think it would start here. The individual most likely assumes it will start somewhere else. When an individual has chosen to do something on their own, say find a job, they are certainly responsible for motivation. They will feed that with the carrots and sticks of different opportunities. But when an individual is expected to do something they relinquish control of motivation.
The Boss
Which brings us to the first level leaders. They are the closest to core motivational action. They have the chance to effect action. Unfortunately they are the bosses- as my kids say, “stop bossing me around”. Doubly unfortunate is the fact that they are also individuals. They are saddled with the need to both act and be responsible for action. With so much action on the radar it is easy to forget that action requires motivation.
The Mid Level Manager
It is here that the carrots and sticks are stacked, measured, bargained for and grouped. Since carrots and sticks are a fairly weak motivator, force and coercion are often chosen as alternatives. So now we have an individual who is also a boss delivering blows and wishing they could somehow satisfy everyone- which would probably increase motivation and therefore the right actions.
The Acronym Leaders
At this level you get your title shortened, from seven and eight letters (and more) to 2- VP. Not only must motivation at an individual level (which of course includes the VP) be considered, but there is now an invisible core energy centered around function (read skill, focus and a certain kind of specific motivation) that has a powerful action/inaction lever. Competing motivators and competing actions (or not) appear. The more this person takes charge of functional motivators the more they tend to run head-on into disparate organizational motivators- especially if they are wrapped up in a change package.
Enter the Figureheads
SVP’s.
Their idea of individual now means something completely different. Their understanding of motivators has been tarnished by the rise through the other levels. My favorite motivator- make this make sense- has lost its importance next to, “here is the list make it happen”. The SVP’s have a confusing list of competing interests, all of our categories, plus functions in general, sometimes the combination of functions (who do not always get along- think sales and marketing), the board (since many of them sit there), which means shareholders (a category of individuals that has a serious, often detrimental effect on motivation and action)…
Which leads to the Founder/CEO/Evangelist
It is just as easy to say they are in charge of motivation as it is to say the same of the individuals. For both you might just be right. While this individual (mixing categories again) has the weight of the world on their shoulders they also have all the potential for motivation that can create both action and the motivation to act. They can guide systems, processes, structure and rewards. They can acknowledge (hint- biggest motivator for action), stir collaboration, mediate disputes and discrepancies and bring in the tools and resources to motivate worthwhile action (another hint- see make sense above).
We might have to call it a tie.
In the hierarchical structure, horizontal/matrixed or not, the top person is ultimately, on paper, in charge of motivation. In a democratic, each-person-is-a-shining-light culture, the individual is in charge of every action (not necessarily responsible, just in charge). So it is a tie. Since each person is an individual tie broken.
Which creates a nasty circular looped argument for change management to focus on the individual in terms of action. Search “change management” and you will find approaches that slot right in.
Motivation requires an input, which creates energy to stimulate action. Skip the input (makes sense is one) and go straight to the energy (urgency?) and you get…an equal and opposite reaction.
Approaches to action/change that look at the organizations world from an individual stakeholder perspective back at all the sticks, all the carrots, all of our categories and all of the other angles that influence motivated action (the best kind for change, read “Champions”) …work.
Those approaches create Vision to Work… for a change.
(couldn’t resist a plug )
Good start. The primary competency of a change management consultant, I am beginning to think, is anticipation. Or ,so you do not confuse this with some fight or flight tendency (also well honed in CM practitioners) intuition might be a better word. We can tell you what will happen as each little action reverberates across the change web. We have probably seen something like this before, people are people and because of that, mistakes are consistently repeated from organization to organization and person to person.
Odds are you are not thinking of:
- How your assumptions effect your approach
- The true effect the change will have on operational efficiency
- The true effect operations will have on the path to the end state
- Importance of placement of change process- usually too low in organization
- Importance of timing of CM- usually too late
- The effect of leadership (different than the “importance of”)
- The power of one (how well is your approach going to acknowledge at the individual level)
- Context and big picture- will a stakeholder know where they fit and where you are in the process?
- Your performance system and its stranglehold on change
- Your leaders and their stranglehold on change (see previous bullet- not necessarily their fault)
- How you are dealing with assessment and measurement
- The difference between training and awareness
- Leveraging transformational initiatives for succession and professional development
- Accountability, responsibility and “ownership”
It is a much longer list, but you get the idea. Or do you?
If you really want to “transform” your organization looking at a much bigger picture is essential.
If your approach is the typical one of firing CM into the fray and hoping for little fall out this is an unnecessary list… until the next time you try to make a big change.
Yesterday’s post had me peeling bananas upside down with a nine year old. Now I am wondering how many things I can peel differently in my own life as well as within my client’s organizations. This little exercise says a lot about change management.
- Change must make sense
- Sensible change must improve something (which makes sense)
- There will always be a little (or a lot) of hesitation (I will cut slack and say the a lot could be “resistance”)
- Even bought into the change, we have to transition
- All of this needs to be understood and acknowledged for the next person to change
- Change does not necessarily take time, but it does take a different focus
- Things are different after the change, which is a good thing
- If the change does turn out to make sense there is no turning back
From the end state back (admittedly in this case I am doing it with hindsight)-
This backwards banana thing makes complete sense (it is faster, cleaner and just fun). I will never peel a banana the old way again. It has not happened yet, but I will see someone peel the old way soon. I will notice. CM guy that I am I will understand what I went through to change and acknowledge that process for the someone. In this case it should be a quick change (and it can be easily demonstrated and measured). It will take awhile for both of us to instinctively “go monkey” and flip that banana over.
Odds are I will have to, short of and including the demonstration, illustrate the sensibility of upside down banana peeling. And I will have to pause and be patient during the hesitation. The worst thing I can do is take the hesitation as a no (or assume a no from the start) and begin to strongly push the monkey thing.
This monkey peeling makes sense.
 
and people, which we sometimes forget.
They are often left to make decisions on their own. When those decisions turn out to have positive results they often must jump in celebration alone. Depending on where they currently sit in the organization (and at times where their next seat seems to be) they may just have to guide someone else’s decisions. I can give you some first hand feedback from my service in those roles.
One of my cringe points is the way in which change models and approaches deal with leadership. Just like the change processes those models lead into some of the most important first steps are passed by and left out. I insist with my executive clients in a process that builds end state descriptions for all. Because the leaders will have the responsibility of delivering, deciding and explaining they must understand how their work fits in to the big picture, just like a first day employee.
They become champions of the connection of work and individuals to strategy and a bigger picture not cheerleaders for the new change/thing. Because they are the champions of that connection I would say it is their responsibility to make sure the change makes sense. It is their responsibility to make sure the train does not start until they can articulate the connection. Sorry senior leader client person that is not the role of the CM practitioner. Delivering that articulation and making sure it is heard and understood is. It is also not the role of your direct report (see previous sentence).
We can go on and on about all the things someone should do as a leader, but without the correct assumptions and perspective those fantastic leadership traits fall on dead ears and worse dead hands and change stalls or fails.
So if you are a CM practitioner start to acknowledge executives as stakeholders. If you are inserted into a change process that does not do that stand in front of the train. As a senior leader I hereby give you permission to ponder, clarify and get comfortable with your role as a stakeholder first and leader next.
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.
… 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?
A question from a client leveraging change management for a merger- “What is the most important thing for us to keep in mind?”.
Let’s use a sugar into coffee (or tea or water) analogy.
The coffee is the parent entity or merger; the sugar the “mergee”. The parent company protected by the strength of the cup will stay intact; the company bought will, at some point depending on the purity of the sugar, dissolve into the coffee.
The sugar people may see ruin (an old fashioned CM consultant will call this resistance- big mistake, see almost any post in this blog). The coffee people will see a sweetened cup of coffee (and fail to see it is not the same cup of coffee anymore).
From a business perspective the sweetener should add to the revenue mix in some way. The initial add though is typically an innovative, start up approach and mentality, not necessarily existing in the parent organization. That mentality, from the business side, is represented by a product or service that augments the parent companies offerings.
The dilution, the enhancement, the changes from the originals, the sweet/the bitter and all they imply, is the answer to the question.
The way to get all that to work together is to acknowledge, then define the strength of the purchased entity, the value of the addition to the parent company and the best scenario to retain the innovative strength of the purchased firm in the new packaging of the parent company.
The rub is that the parent company stakeholders must understand the cultural tie and connections of the purchased group, the sugar people. They are obviously talented and skilled and they were able to show that under a different banner. The purchased company must understand that businesses grow and with that growth they must morph into new forms- sweeter coffee can be a great thing and is not possible without the sugar.
The external change management consultant- yes, External, this would be almost impossible to do right internally (and a third party arrangement may border on internal, keep that in mind) helps the clients to create an end state that can keep the strength of the sugar and not let it get too diluted in the coffee. That strength must be a reflection of the competencies and skill of the sugar people. This acknowledgement, recognition and inclusion must eventually overpower the bonds the purchased group has to their former flag.
Anything that emphasizes the big deep cup of coffee and delegitimizes the value of a single grain of sugar is going to make a messy, foul tasting cup of coffee.
I have reached a milestone for blogging. My first 100 posts. 100 tiny little blurbs of insight (I hope), knowledge, ideas, perspective, contrarianism (as I promised), practicality, practice, languaging, approach, push back, lightheartedness and voice. Thank you for turning on each of those little spots of light. I have an ongoing list of ideas that is now at 40 so the next 100 are waiting for the click of the switch.
A promise to myself was kept-no “top, pick your number, lists”. Despite the fact that they are notorious for sucking people into a blog. There was one post that had the number 3 but that is hardly a list. Well, in keeping with the change motif- promise about to be broken- for the top 100 things to keep in mind for change! …made even more obnoxious with numbering-
- 100 As I say with my kids for the word “hate”- resistance is such a strong word
- 99 The middle of the organization is a black hole for change
- 98 Horizontal has a better ring than vertical when it comes to organizational change
- 97 Talk to the last stakeholder first
- 96 Initiatives need to be led by the owner (the person with the wallet)
- 95 They can be guided by high level others
- 94 Operations and change can go hand in hand
- 93 With improvements in the first paying for the second
- 92 Smiles are the additive to the change gas tank
- 91 Laughter the petrol
- 90 End state trumps future state every time
- 89 Change curves make as much sense as bell curves
- 88 Organizational change is not the same as death
- 87 So leave DABDA for the grieving
- 86 On any given day there are a number of steps for change (hint not eight)
- 85 Change guiding (management if you like) works better when not controlled by a function
- 84 like HR
- 83 or IT
- 82 OD
- 81 and Finance
- 80 As much or more money should be spent at the front of change as the rest of the timeline
- 79 CM is an art, but artists have processes and methods they follow
- 78 A smooth change process can be repeated, but not if you think it is a science
- 77 Externals can move fast and predict people
- 76 Internals can predict their own people
- 75 That is not always a good thing (see external and fast above)
- 74 The bigger the consulting firm the more expensive and the more you will need them next time
- 73 Organic change, just like the groceries, is a lot more expensive (and not necessarily healthier)
- 72 Beware anything labeled “best practice” for change management
- 71 CM is not project management
- 70 With heavy front end investment (idea forward) CM has an effective project track with change weaved in
- 69 There is always a reason to change
- 68 There is always a reason not to change
- 67 Each stakeholder has one (at least) of each
- 66 A good change practitioner can pull out both
- 65 Just like a customer a stakeholder is always right (in their own mind)
- 64 Nine times out of ten (my stat) the stakeholder actually IS right
- 63 at least half (my stat the real one is probably higher) of change initiatives do not make sense
- 62 The 70% failure stat for change is just dumb
- 61 Beware any firm that uses only their patented approach to change
- 60 Cringe when another is using the licensed version
- 59 Change Management is not OD
- 58 OD is not Change Management
- 57 but there is a little of both in each
- 56 HR is not Change Management
- 55 Change Management is not HR
- 54 but…well you see the pattern
- 53 A CM practitioner must be smart
- 52 quick to survey the environment
- 51 great with and about people (yes obvious, but I have met a lot of them…)
- 50 good with process
- 49 clear about the effects of leadership
- 48 ego-less
- 47 full of ego (the kind that loves to guide people and business to success)
- 46 is a truly different kind of leader
- 45 must be systems oriented
- 43 must be holistic
- 42 must truly appreciate and admire technical ability
- 41 same for subject matter expertise (of others)
- 40 possesses keen intuition about people, culture and business
- 39 knows how to confront
- 38 knows how to use confrontation for compromise, to get perspective on the table and to include
- 37 CM and employee development can go hand in hand and save money in the process
- 36 Those external to the business are stakeholders too
- 35 Beware the use of the internal communications function for change (cool those jets I just said beware)
- 34 Have I said High and Horizontal yet? for the big stuff
- 33 Just like a home remodel everything becomes “big” quick
- 32 So, can I say High and Horizontal again?
- 31 CM is not a second career- beware the executive turned CM practitioner
- 30 if they have 10 years of true CM external experience I will cut them some slack
- 29 My favorite technique is “emergency” half day executive meetings
- 28 Surprisingly I can almost put them on my calendar ahead of time
- 27 It turns out there is a lot about CM that is pretty consistent
- 26 or is it the clients?
- 25 or is it just people?
- 24 Client interaction on large engagements has stages- 3,6,9 months and the 2 year mark
- 23 System implementations have a distinct “people side”
- 22 Ram something down my throat and I will spit it out
- 21 Spit out CM initiatives are ugly (and expensive)
- 20 CM is not a good environment for third parties for the lead role
- 19 Use a third party and you get 30+% less and pay the same
- 18 Is it me or is CM actually getting visibility these days?
- 17 Beware consultants carrying tools
- 16 A hammer does not build a house on its own
- 15 Org charts are revealing
- 14 don’t have one? give me a week and I will create it
- 13 you are dreaming if you think your organization is matrixed
- 12 and a little short sighted if you think that is a good thing
- 11 Authority and Responsibility can be powerful for CM
- 10 If you do not answer why in words that work for each stakeholder you will fail
- 9 If you jump to when before why you will probably fail
- 8 If you focus solely on how you will miss the big picture (see why above)
- 7 Where is good, especially if it has an “about people” component
- 6 because it can answer who
- 5 the right “who’s” not the pumped up, time and money wasting, include everyone kind
- 4 inclusion should be about skill for the initiative first
- 3 Change is FUN!
- 2 Change can suck
and finally, number one on the list
Did I miss anything?
Well, there is always 200…
|
|
