|
|
 
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.
High level change management has two or three spots in the timeline/process where I always feel it is essential to call a conference room late-morning-into-lunch meeting to wrap our arms around the big picture. I do not take forcing the invite lightly. One of the reasons I can be bold enough to take a chunk of first or second horizontal executive time is that an interesting thing always happens…something new, something potentially “viral” (in a good way), something specific to the client organization appears. It appears in the form of a new word (languaging at its core) a diagram, chart or picture.
One of those meetings (4 hours long) at a Fortune 50 firm created all of the above- a chart, a diagram and a picture. It was a picture that bore a striking resemblance to a camel. “It looks like we drew a camel”, I said on our sandwich break… that connection, that potential analogy, that unique to that organization picture, was all it took to begin creating a model. You might call that the second step of languaging.
The third step, now I hear a year later, after an all hands presentation by the client, was a wildfire spread of the analogy to different parts of the company around the world. Which has since morphed into functional and regional interpretations of the camel analogy, chart, picture and model.
It is nice that a camel can go a long time without water, can stand extremes of heat and has a face that takes a little time getting used to. All great languaging leverage points. Those up and down humps are also helpful to illustrate passage of time, levels of effort and participation. Carry that a little farther and you could say certain parts of the camel are better at carrying a heavy load (and certain camels are stronger).
This type of analogy languaging has happened a couple of time with clients… Maybe we should count them as deliverables…
Change tends to draw people into creating fortifications- walls, forts, moats and fences. Are they for keeping things out or protection? Do they create hilltop fortresses of safety or islands of isolation? Of course the answers depend on which side of the fortress you are on, inside or outside. On whether you stand to gain or lose by being on either side.
Change management practitioners must be adept at gaining entrance to the fortifications, introducing something of value and leveraging that to agreed upon relaxation of the barrier- maybe a time when the gate is open, maybe an elimination of the guard on the tower and in a perfect world open doors and a symbol left to illustrate possibility.
I get the wall thing.
But from my external perspective, especially when I have gained access in both directions, that wall is a daunting thing. Look at this post picture. Look at your organization. Are your walls this intimidating? As a leader with, I hope, the ability to have this view, think of the resources needed just to manage the fortification.
Or better, think of the resources you would have if you could prevent the building of the fortification in the first place.
This gets to the core of what I see as the problem with change management and organizational operation and strategy- wrong perspectives, wrong approaches. In our analogy what typically happens is that the walls get stormed (the core of the resistance perspective) or they get strategically breached. The first wears everyone out (by endlessly addressing symptoms) and the second creates an insidious kind of fear (spies are everywhere).
What to do then if you are a leader faced with existing or about to be built fortifications?
Well you might want to create an opening to your own fort as a start…
- Find out why there seems to be a need for protection and separation and address that need.
- Use an external resource who can move freely through the gates, in both directions.
- Use a sentry who is responsible to both tribes (potentially fraught with problems, but also a good succession builder).
- Evaluate resource needs and efficiency and balance the two (you will find a lot of the fear under the heading, “resource”).
- Be careful of creating the fortifications before they think about it- think committees, “hub and spoke”, functions etc.
Know always that fortifications are obstacles and barriers not protection and security.
Be conscious that fortifications are effective (in a bad way) barriers to the growth and development of people.
Get the gates to open. The walls and the forts can still be there to contain and corral energy and resources.
I will let you decide which one is which…
Let’s go with your first instinct (although you could be wrong).
Our CEO takes up space in a room, but in a good way. She/He is strong, determined, has a great memory for the good and bad, is willing to lead the herd even through danger, has stamina and can carry a huge load.
Our change management consultant is agile, industrious, fearless, resourceful, mischievous, able to get to places others cannot, patient, kind, and certainly not afraid of the elephant in the room.
If you are the aforementioned CEO/elephant you would do well to take the mouse in as your friend, confidant and trusted advisor.
Let’s use some of our traits mentioned above to look at the CEO to change manager and vice versa equation-
Because it is rare to have this pairing you have an opportunity to find out things about your organization that you simply cannot do on your own. And despite the feather fluffing of your reports neither can they. Only an external with an understanding of you, your organization and your reports can gather and filter the right information.
They need to do this a little like a mouse. A mouse can be practically invisible (although you do notice the missing scraps of food). A mouse can also send someone to the highest perch in fear. It is almost impossible not to make a connection to a pet mouse. They are just so easy to hold and connect to.
I saw a documentary the other night in which the herd of elephants is followed by a pack of lions for their complete journey of tens of miles. Close to the goal the leader of the herd is drawn away by the lions and, for him, story over. It struck me as a parody of the way organizations work. Everyone looks to the CEO to lead, to shine, to inspire. But they almost expect them to sacrifice themselves to the lions.
That herd could easily have worked together to reach the end state. I can almost picture the mouse running amongst them, facilitating.
Keep in mind my answer to first things for an engagement http://tinyurl.com/279g4yy, the power within the organization http://tinyurl.com/2cgbkpz and the tune to one of my favorite songs by the Scorpions, “Wind of Change”.
Stand anywhere in your organization close your eyes, let this tune run through your head and listen (hold off on the whistling this time)… to your organizations breeze, because it carries change.
Look to the direction of the wind and listen. Because if you truly listen you will be drawn to ask.
…not sure why, but this is an exercise that is not only difficult for senior leaders to do, but does not happen.
For me that is the magic of the external influence.
Not only can we blow those seedlings loose, but we can reach out and grab them to plant as a seed. Because we do know how to listen to the wind… of change.
In the world of management, especially change management, consulting, time does not equal money.
Because except at the most junior level change management (and most consulting) is not about actual on paper deliverables- which can be measured and paid for with time to money units. It is about something that is a little harder to measure- people, strategy and results.
An example-
What if your consultant comes in, roams around and talks and connects as part of the end state description data gathering (I am giving you the credit for being the smart leader who brings in a high level CM consultant very early) and gets a few tidbit comments from stakeholders about operations and process. What if those tidbits turn out to be significant productivity possibilities? I have had situations where the suggestions easily amount to 7 figure savings with little adaption on the part of the organization. Let’s just call them oversight or “padding”.
So with a 7 figure suggestion what is that consultant worth now? Please do not tell me you are paying them on an hourly rate (and if you are the consultant reading this shame on you). Because that hourly rate now needs to be in the 300’s or so. Procurement would never allow that.
Sure you might have gathered that info. on your own or through your Directors, but did you? Or maybe you did and happened not to listen that day? Odds are neither happened and it was the external element- made even more powerful with the clear connection to you (dare I say around the Director) that made this possible.
I bring this up because. thankfully, at the senior level value is understood. But with the contacts and possible consulting arrangements I have had in this latest economic fiasco, most at the Director or below level value, is not even part of the equation (or at least not much different than the kind you use when buying a car). And conceptually it is difficult if not impossible to get across. Stick in the third party staffing firm and good luck getting any extra value.
As a C leader, continue to acknowledge value based on results and savings not paper deliverables and begin to make a concerted effort to teach and mentor that from Manager level up. You will be happy. You will get the good consultants- and they will be happy. And your organization will be happy (as in more profitable).
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.
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…
It has always struck me as odd from an external change management perspective that a client would insist on previous industry experience for a change role. I have been lucky to amass experience in a variety of industries under the cover of similar situations or astute clients. For specific experience to be important as I said seems odd.
Here’s why-
- Big change, the kind I typically guide, requires a shift away from status quo. It is the little powerful and agile tugboat that gets the ship moving. Outside influence is a strong catalyst.
- To do it the way it has always been done is to double (at least) the time it takes.
- Consultants who focus on subject matter would do well to have experience- Change is the experience for a CM not industry knowledge.
- Are you hiring a project manager or a change practitioner? See previous bullet.
- On the very first day I am asking questions that make connections, acknowledge expertise, value inside connections and understanding of culture, pay proper credit to history and mores and illustrate my industry naiveté while creating a starting point for the acquisition of industry experience.
- And finally, really, people are people and human nature has consistency. No industry owns those vagaries outright.
Here are my own assumptions about what it takes to be an effective external change practitioner (and what you would do well to consider as a high level client)-
As a change practitioner you must quickly make a connection to the idea that starts the change, the structure that may prevent forward movement, the history that will put up walls and the exchanges at the people level that do not support business objectives. You make all those connections by drawing out the best in individuals. The best knowledge. The best expertise. The best perspectives. The best caution. The best energy.
If I already know about what they do then asking those questions is disingenuous. Not asking the questions is missing a crucial piece for the foundation of change- trust and admiration. Since my industry is change and everyone has questions about change management I have the opportunity to build relationships, the strong kind, with each discourse.
I realize as a client or a stakeholder this all may seem strange. Maybe it is because it is the kind of thing that is easier viewed outside in than inside out?…
|
|
