|
|
Two words this time around. Do they mean the same thing?
Here are my external definitions:
Corporate-
Anything that is owned, managed and delivered from the highest levels in the organization. Corporate crosses above functions. And you can have a corporate function itself that works for everyone (like HR).
Centralized-
Pulling resources together as a unit to save cost and overlap. Programs and initiatives that have cultural components are often centralized. Procurement is typically centralized (a big movement in the last couple of years- I wanted to write fad instead of movement…).
But what do these two words mean for employees and stakeholders? This always surprises me- as an external who owns nothing and so looks for the smartest solutions.
Corporate means dictated policy and rules.
Centralized means controlled by a corporate entity (in their minds often to the detriment of functions- what an external might call a silo).
This perspective continues to puzzle me as I work to update and dig deeper into my corporate change management entity suggestions.
Stakeholders balk at anything that is corporate and centralized. For change that visibility and ability to cross fertilize is powerful glue for a longer time period than most functions operate under. Strengthening of operations and connections on one initiative builds a foundation for the next.
In many ways that is what operations should be doing. In many ways that is what HR was expected to do (but never given the leverage or visibility to get right). Since this rarely happens there is a trust deficit. Corporate and centralized are the labels for those deficits. In the minds of stakeholders if something carries those labels it cannot and will not work.
I can see why.
The first thing organizations seem to do when they think of setting up a change entity is labeling it a “Center of Excellence”. That would be fantastic if they meant this morphing group of external and internal people was helping to coalesce all the expertise of the organization. Not so. Center of Excellence ends up being just another function- one with a confusing purpose and reason.
If you are a leader being asked to think of this because of an organic movement within your organization, or better, because you yourself know there needs to be something in your organization that look deeper into your transformations (and even, potentially, small changes) think hard about our two words. It might be a good exercise for you to ask questions of your employees and potential stakeholders about corporate versus function and central versus disparate.
You might have a trust equation to build before you can do the “implementation” piece of your change.
Centralized and corporate (and worse corporate centralization) are words with hidden meanings for stakeholders. Consider those stakeholder perspective as you think about long term transformational change (and your organizations second round in the distant future).
Technorati Tags: CCM, CEO, change awareness, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, organizational change, resistance to change, vision to work
Job boards and portals (Dice, Indeed, Simply Hired, Linkedin etc.) offer a window into upcoming corporate moves, changes in the contracting world and even a glimpse at consulting itself. Peek at them consistently enough and you can tell who is installing, who is merging and who is transforming. Best of all you can see how they view those changes. You can also see how the third parties are fairing and where the supply and demand curve is moving.
Here are few snippets from one day:
“4 or more years of organizational change management design experience (within project consulting)”
The year number is one way to differentiate new against mid level and senior. Four or less is junior, 4-8 mid and 8-10 and above senior. From a consulting perspective I would say the numbers are pretty arbitrary (HR likes to give everyone divisions and procurement likes to dictate rates hence a subjective scale).
“(within project consulting)” is nice. It might show they understand the difference between tactical and strategic change management- this one is tactical. Design for this type of role always seems like a strange word to use. Tacticians do not really design anything they usually follow some dictated set of directions…
“Change Management Analyst”
This usually shows the organization wants as little outside influence as possible. Just analyze for us, we will take it from there. Analyst is also a way to knock down rates. In those cases they are hoping they can get the practitioner skill set with an analyst cost. This role also tends to be one that must follow a set of directions. The less subjective the better from this type of clients perspective. (Good luck with objective analysis when it comes to people).
With my client
(likely a requisition)
This one comes up a lot and is, I think, funny. With “my client” really means is a requisition and this firm happens to get the blanket announcement for a role. I know this because I personally get contacted by all of them the day the requisition is posted. NONE of them know who the client is or much about the role, but they insist it is their client. Or maybe they are just on the mailing list…
I tease here and think it is funny, in that uncomfortable laughter sort of way, because just 5 or 6 years ago the buyer REALLY was a client- as in they can call you on your cell phone anytime because they know and trust you. HR, procurement and the Microsoft case, along with a nasty cost cutting environment, have put multiple walls between client and deliverer/consultant.
At least two (2) years’ experience using course accelerator tools (e.g., Captivate, Articulate, UPK)
Apparently these tools are accelerators compared to the early training tools Authorware and Director. Do they mean acceleration of the development of the training? Or accelerated learning (which is an oxymoron)? One of the three definitely speeds up development and it shows in the quality of the deliverable (as in poor).
Some more tidbits:
I have already had 5 instances this year where a third party contacted me for a role (obvious hornets nest judging by the expectations and the matching rate- scary client and likely scary change) and I gave them a rate 40% higher. There are two reasons for consultants quoting higher rates, to NOT get the role and to signal to clients (and likely the third parties) that their rate is not marketable. What happened with each of those 5? They came back at my rate. Third party skimming too much? Client understanding the recent change in the supply and demand curve? Both?
Posted rates have jumped up at least 10% this month.
Rates are being posted. That likely means good consultants are balking.
In the “what rate do you charge dance” (consultants never give the first number) clients and third parties are willingly taking the first stab (and it is a higher start than last year).
Both clients and third parties are telling me things have changed and they can’t even get senior consultants to talk to them without an up front number much higher than it has been the last three years.
Recruiters are also telling me the cookie cutter practitioners with their shiny certifications are not making the grade. That coupled with the fact that we are moving into a strategic environment rather than rote tactics is good for genuine experience and higher degrees.
Just consulting stuff I thought might be interesting.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, change management consultant, External Consultant, Fees
It has been an interesting couple of years for change management- quite the contrast to 8 – 10 years ago. Consulting, to some extent, is dead, replaced by the strange wave that followed the Microsoft case. (Treat people like employees and you have to give them benefits and consideration for effort- so now we have contracting scenarios that are an arms length worst case scenario, low rates and no benefits and still treated like an employee).
Things go in cycles (this one a little too long for just one career). What will happen is demand will pick up, corporate money will free up and suddenly consulting will return, along with respectable rates (if the consultants are smart enough to raise their rates together).
What is ironic is that all that money locked up in corporate accounts when freed up will land in the worst environment for cost savings. If it had been spent in the last couple of years to move change and shore up structure a lot of companies would be ready (and already have those consultants in place with some loyalty). This is not hindsight it is lack of foresight and strategic planning.
Those who underpaid (I could give you the list of firms in the Bay Area considered chintzy and last resorts for clients….) will find that no one is interested in working with them even if the rates go up. Those firms already have revolving doors (I was contacted 13 times for the same role over a two year period and I know for a fact they went through at least three consultants).
The more firms are stripped of their talent through cost savings the more valuable senior consultants will become.
I see corrections in the future. If you are a senior leader I would say now is the time to get a head start- grab a senior consultant while you can- but do not think about it too long, that could get expensive.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, CEO, change management consultant, External Consultant, Fees, Garrett Gitchell, Value, vision
I got contacted by a third party today and their first question was, “do you have experience with change strategy?”.
Wow the Curse of Experience has broken!
Since 2008 experience with high and broad change has not played well to clients.There has been so much tightening and so much farming out through third parties that everything has been crunched down to tactics. Tactical change without strategy is not pretty- a lot of the change of the last three years has followed that pattern.
The curse of experience is worth thinking about because it will return. You are cursed, at times, if you are experienced because you will see beyond the parameters of the current change (and role if this is contracting). That is not comfortable for a client who has clear edges to their control.
You can be a curse as a consultant if you are all ideas and no urgency.
You are cursed in crunch environments if you feel, as you should if you are experienced, that the client owns the change you are just helping drive. Clients often, especially mid level implementers, need externals to do a lot of the work. Hence the movement toward third parties and contracting (the client feels in those situations they can tell the contracted person what to do, like an employee).
Strategy dissipates when there is no growth. Consultants and clients are forced into tactical approaches to change in non growth environments. Experience is too expensive.
And there is the spell that has been cast that makes buyers think that tactics are a lot of work and strategy is not. One is with the hands and one with the head. Both take effort.
But here is the benefit we all get from our three year experience curse- those senior consultants are now well versed in tactics. Strategy will always convert to tactics (tactics can exist without strategy… for awhile). So now we have senior, experienced consultants with three years of intense tactics under their belts.
Senior leaders, now might be the time to ask strategic questions and then ask for the translation to tactics. It is worth testing each candidate for a senior role. The curse may have mesmerized them.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, CEO, External Consultant, strategy, tactics
A while back I did a tongue in cheek look at models.
Thanks to all the certification machines out there and the unemployment rate there is a flood of new, inexperienced (you can tell by the questions they ask in Forums) “change management practitioners”. It seems the first thing they want to know about are the different models to use. Big indicator that they really do not understand Change Management.
Because there are a lot of horns out there tooting as loud as possible- one that insists Change Management falls within project management (recipe for failure for anything big). I have never been one to blow my horn loud and for the sole purpose that someone listens to it (or spends money to hear it again). I shout when something does not make sense and no one seems to be saying anything (even though it is right in front of their eyes and they agree).
Well isn’t that a little like true Change Management? It is about calling out things so you can get to make sense end states. PS most of the models out there, on purpose, by design, do not do that. Most of the clients out there LOVE those kind of models because they really do not need to change much. You are not that kind of client/leader or practitioner, right?
So here (the actual model with hyperlink explanations for each piece) is the Vision to Work model:
I created it as a representation of End State Focus and Makes Sense Change. I did not, like many modelers, create a model that illustrated how change was being approached already. It amazes me how many models are created to support status quo- pretending otherwise.
Call me out marketers, but I have never touted the model specifically- the perspective yes, maybe the approach, but not the model itself. Leaders, hesitate when a consultant you are looking at whips out their model and pushes the deliverables within- they are playing to your status quo. (You do not want that, remember?)
Here is another funny thing about models. They seem to be frameworks to teach someone how to practice change management. Senior practitioners often end up creating similar paperwork (say stakeholders assessments), but it is more record keeping of the things they have found rather than a map for what to look for.
Prosci is the perfect example. A mid level practitioner could follow the model to a tee and get to the end (and I don’t mean END STATE) befuddled, confused and surprised at the failure. Anyone can sit down and draw a picture, but few of those creations end up at Christies. Anyone can go through the steps for change management; few can get to the things and people that must change for end state attainment.
The Change Management Arena has gotten a little scary this year. The emphasis on models and the strange evangelism (by, judging from their profiles, new and junior practitioners) for the companies that market the hardest is not a good sign for big transformational change. If you are a senior leader looking for a consultant be wary and ask yourself if you and your organization are REALLY capable of the change you seek. If not go with the models and the cheap rate. If so be informed and talk to those practitioners who speak with a softer voice.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, C level, CEO, Change Design, change failure, Change Strategy, External Consultant, Fees, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, vision to work
What would it look like if change, started from scratch, was done right?
- Find a senior change management consultant for a trusted advisor.
- Answer why.
- Connect to expertise.
- Engage.
- Divide the journey into parts.
- Manage time.
- Cycle your change process.
Trusted Advisor
If you are in the “pre-scratch” spot now is the time to bring in a senior external consultant. My pick, obviously, is an independent consultant ( you can always add other options later, the independent choice will give you both control and flexibility- not so with other options).
Why
Because most organizations dictate it the business case will begin to form quickly. That’s great, it is one side of the why equation. The tough side from a change standpoint is the why for people, especially for individuals and groups. Get that explanation and description clear early (and adapt as you gather feedback from stakeholders).
Expertise
Change requires people.
Helping them to participate, while often difficult, is not the most important thing about the people component.
Expertise is.
I coach young kids soccer; they love it, but we do not always win. I consult for change; people are led to engage, but they do not always know what they are doing.
From scratch determine if you will have the right people for the tasks at hand. The scratch viewpoint of this is a high level, in general picture. As you work back from the end state you will have a better idea of exactly what skills and competencies will be needed on your change journey.
As you move forward (to move backward to move forward again) always keep expertise in mind. People like to know how good they are at their work. People like to be acknowledged for their talent. This is one of the reasons people participate (I think the most powerful of the list). Use expertise in a human way to get to your business goals.
Engage
Once you have a broad view of expertise in relation to your change you can engage. Most change initiatives do not engage very well or at all early enough. There is fear of transparency and it clouds approach. Trust yourself. Do so and your stakeholders will trust you and so the change.
Now engage to gather perspective, information and gauge energy (call it “readiness” if you have to) as the foundation for your end state(s) description. Expertise should be your guiding banner (not some false inclusion approach). You value the talent you have; you engage with that talent to get to mutual goals. A great start for change from scratch.
Phases
Don’t let your PMO and project managers get their hands on the change too quickly. Doing do eliminates the chance to have change from scratch. They do a fantastic job, but, remember that expertise thing? Their expertise is in chunking up the business side of the journey and then assigning tasks (actually they tend to be detail oriented and make the tasks first then chunk them into groups). As with all competencies use in the right place at the right time.
Phases help the PMO organize and are the best time to partner CM and PM. Layering of CM within PM by phase works well (as long as you have paid attention to our previous categories and that trusted advisor is there).
Manage Time
Your PMO and PM’s will focus intensely on time and timing. From scratch change requires a different perspective of time. When you mention a moment in time, say an adoption date or for IT the date you turn off the legacy system, things change (a different meaning for the word change). “When” for change should not be addressed officially until you have things lined up clearly (and really understand your stakeholders and the end state). IT engagements especially fall apart if the drop dead date is announced too soon (having a drop dead date is not a good idea in the first place).
From scratch change must manage the use of time, the meaning of timing and the announcement of times. Be realistic about timing. Be flexible about longer time frame pieces of your change. Much like promises, do not force yourself into admitting you made a mistake. And do not encourage mistakes by forcing timing.
Change is Ongoing
And ubiquitous and always going to happen and inevitable. So why not leverage current change for that next one in the future. I don’t mean laying down a turn key process (there is no such thing no matter what that other firm may be telling you). Set up patterns in this change of exchange, interaction, use of expertise and communication that can be replicated and, ideally, culturized for positive effect now and into the future. Make some change management aspects operational.
Change Management from scratch rarely, if ever, happens. We would be living in a different business environment if it did (and I honestly thing, especially in this environment the companies that figure out how to do this will leave their competitors standing still when things pick up).
To start from scratch for change requires a trusted advisor placed contracting with the owner, realistic and transparent why descriptions, connection with expertise, engagement, understanding of time and culturization of the positives. If, as a senior leader, you can figure out how to do this…
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, CEO, change management, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
Tactical Change Management layers over project management and the organizations project process. It is heavily focused on adoption, timing and a command and control approach.
Some characteristics of Tactical CM (TCM):
- Leadership comes from middle management
- Communication cascades
- External resources are contracted
- Usually templated
Leadership comes from middle management
TCM is led by middle managers. Leadership visibility is rarely above Director level. This happens for two reasons, one positive and one detrimental to change.
The first is that the change is operational, technical or functionally focused and it makes sense to have leadership visibility come from the hands-on leaders. For many large organizations those leaders also hold some or all of the purse strings for certain projects so there is a lower level ownership component.
The second is that the change is organic. Organic change bubbles up from inside the organization. Sometimes it pulls senior leaders along, sometimes it just happens without them. Change like this can happen, but it is a long haul. Success does not typically come from a tactical approach. But that is what these types of leaders are comfortable with, and to be fair, that is what they are compensated for.
Communication cascades
Lacking full senior leadership support and visibility mid level leaders must pass responsibility to others. That comes with a command and control, cascading approach for both communication and leadership. A core project team creates (comms., training etc.) and then passes to the next level for implementation.
This has the advantage of leveraging lack of resources (TCM is always under budgeted). The disadvantage is that each successive cascade weakens the original content, training or message. The weakening typically is a status quo cascade as each level tailors things to their own preferences effectively avoiding non-tactical change management.
External resources are contracted
This is command and control- avoid risk. It is managed by project managers and leaders who operate under that approach. A fantastic perspective and process for functional and operational projects (clearly defined with no major human element risks). In keeping with this approach external resources (especially change management consultants) are sourced and expected to be contractors- basically employees. Change management does not work well when those changing are also managing the change with no external input. Non- consultative change which TCM is typically runs into problems.
Anything that questions the PMO approach is a risk. PM’s are best at controlling risk. Change management practitioners, especially consultative ones, are a major risk for PM’s. Of course taking this approach is a risk of its own (see Strategic Change Management upcoming post).
Usually templated
TCM falls prey (I know a harsh word, but I have seen the results) to “turn key” templated change methods. For projects, again with little people risk, this can work fantastic (and is very helpful with understaffing). Templated methods used on larger, broader initiatives and programs miss many pieces of the change management equation. They also illuminate the command and control approach which is seen by stakeholders as cold and corporate (not the kind of perspective you want from the people you are trying to control).
Templated approaches usually push “certified” consultants. The certification is, of course, a double down on the original approach which skimps on true CM resources. The best change management consultants (best being both most successful adoption percentages and adding to the strength of the organization with each change) are not certified and only take those “courses” if the client insists on it. That is not to say that those “certified” cannot be good consultants just that the certification does not make a good consultant and is not necessary to be a good consultant (an advanced degree and experience is a different story).
Pros:
Controlled, regimented process- again good for situations where a project focus makes sense.
Frees senior leaders to work on strategy- well managed tactical change with developing consultants helping while senior consultants work with senior leaders on larger strategic change can be a perfect match and set of partnerships.
Measurable and manageable- is great for projects, but one outlier person can make a mess of the numbers quickly (understanding and avoiding this is the forte of change management practitioners, but they have to have high level exposure to be effective).
Cons:
Internally focused- reinforces status quo. Very few changes benefit from this.
Misses ownership component- even small change moves slower when senior leadership is absent or hands off.
Is really just project management- external resources are so controlled and monitored that external influence is squelched. This reduces risk at a low level and increases it at a broader level.
Tactical change is a measured, controlled process that typically follows templated methods. It is comfortable for middle managers, pushes few buttons and can be very effective for functional project level change. It runs into big problems when it is used for change that is broad, transformational and cross functional.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Buyer, CEO, change failure, change tactics, External Consultant, tactical change management
Trusted advisor explored one part of the equation.
Trust takes at least two people.
The trust summary for change management consulting is not complete without exploring the role of Trusted Partner.
First disclosure: I feel like I have had some harsh critique of leadership and leaders lately. The economy and the selfish patterns in society the last 15+ years have bred these problems. I honestly think people are inherently good and can be trusted. Environments that make it easy to be selfish and greedy quickly wear down the potential for trust.
Trusted Partner
A trusted partner must understand that business works when individuals have a chance to use their talent and skills; individuals enjoy work when business leverages their capability for gain (which creates profit for all). Change is a people/business partnership. Too much emphasis on either side of this pairing will erode trust.
When I am evaluating clients my list of trust includes:
- Their visibility in the organization
- Their track record
- Their demeanor
- Their spot on the org. chart
Their visibility in the organization
What does the potential partner think those in the organization see and say about them? If what I hear from stakeholders matches closely with what the leader says trust is likely.
Do they like to take charge and get credit for it? Do they transfer that perspective to the management of others? A leader, I think, should have balance of confidence and humility. Confidence helps with decision making; humility is the foundation for empowerment.
Their track record
What have they done in terms of leadership and how much of that was change (and how big was the change)? An aspect of trust for me personally is how well someone learns. To be a Trusted Partner a client must be able to stretch, accept certain things and try others. Without that I cannot be a Trusted Advisor- more like a trusted contractor (lower case intentional).
They do not have to bring a successful track record to the table. They rose to where they are, there is a reason for that. Mistakes and/or things that could be called not successful can still accomplish a lot on the people side. There is also lessons to be learned for the business side.
A leader ready to look at the past bad and good and learn from it for the future can be trusted (and can be consulted to and partnered with).
Their demeanor
Personality is probably impossible to change. Demeanor has some flex. Willingness to understand and listen to others in order to be successful and improve is a quality for trust.
If a potential client has a demeanor that I am comfortable with trust begins early. For me respect can overweigh a lot of things, demeanor being one of them. If this leader has done things for business and for people that are commendable demeanor becomes secondary. In fact if they have been strong for one side of the equation and are asking for help with the other we have an excellent start for a trusted partnership.
Their spot on the org. chart
Trust, for me, here has to do with the leverage and power they really have compared to where they think they are (or should be) and where they ACTUALLY are on the org. chart.
If they are being overpowered for their position that says something (not always bad- those I have considered excellent people leaders are often overpowered by the heavy business side/greedy competition). If they are not leveraging their spot on the chart that says something else.
If they can be shown where they are, where they should be and where others see them and then look to improve that I personally can trust them.
Those are my little consulting measures. What about our previous trust list from this perspective? My gauge there has as much to do with trust about the initiative as it does about the person I might contract/partner with.
The list of bullets from the trust post:
- integrity
- strength
- ability
- surety
- charisma
- presence
Integrity
Will they be willing to do things after consultation that they will have to stand by? Are they bold enough and willing to take the risk of being checked on whether they do what they say they will?
Strength
They have to have some kind of strength to have risen to where they are. What is it? Does that strength fit the environment/end state they are going to work toward? Are they strong enough to adapt? It can often be important to gauge what they see as strong in others. Again does that line up with the new scenario off in the future?
Ability
Is all this even possible? Do they have the ability and have they built that in others? If not trust will have to be there to absorb the back and forth of what needs to be built and what does not. If there ability is short they may not understand what is needed. A Trusted Partner would be able to make the leap of understanding necessary.
Surety
If they have no connection to the money and most of the time if they are not the owner then they cannot be a Trusted Partner as least for the larger scale change. They can be at a scaled down tactical level though.
If they are the owner like our trust explanation, have they provided enough surety for this change to be possible? We are talking about currency at this point, but what about the currency of their own? How much of themselves are they willing to invest (in both the change and the trusted partnership)?
Charisma
Will people follow this person? Because they trust them or blindly?
Many a founder CEO has a bit of a cult following. The loyal lemmings tend to follow them over the cliff when the organization gets to big for the founders ability. Still, not too worry, the lemmings will follow just as quickly when the leader builds his/her ability and constructs change that makes sense.
And charisma is not really necessary for trust or change anyway (it is just seasoning).
Presence
Are they visible in the organization?
It is hard to trust someone who hides out. It is hard to trust someone who passes the buck. It is hard to trust someone who barks orders from the darkness.
But that too can change. There are many quiet leaders out there. I often trust that presence can be felt through others. Sometimes that is the way it should be for the change to happen.
Trust is a two way street when it comes to consulting. On one side is the Advisor on the other the Partner. Trust is the spot in the middle where they meet. A trusted partnership happens when both parties can go back and forth across the line.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, change management consultant, corporate change management, engagement, Executive, External Consultant, organizational change, vision to work
 If this is the year of the Change Agent then it is likely to also be the year for Change Management Snake Oil salesmen. Yes completely sexist, I do not think I have ever met a women selling snake oil.
To be fair those pushing dicey change approaches aren’t actually delivering the fix in a bottle, but the promises often sound that simple.
It often seems everyone wants to be a Change Agent. Those “selling the oil” seem to think it takes one of two things: pseudo certification or having been a stakeholder during change.
The first typically creates someone trained for methods that were derived from interviewing those very people who led change. Status quo approaches creating a training program to be spread to many others (more for revenue than effective change management).
The second is a little of the same with a loud voice behind it.
If I were a client and a consultant (especially a newly minted one) dangled the elixir in front of me I would want to know where they had been placed for previous engagements, how long they were there (long is not necessarily good) and when they arrived. I would also want to know what kind of education was presented to clients to be able to get those roles. And I would want to know about any small things that built on this foundation- training roles, management roles, internal roles, big consulting firm roles etc.
Changes are not poured out of a bottle.
As a leader do not fall prey to the traveling salesman with the flashy cure.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, C level, CEO, certification, change management consultant, Executive, External Consultant, training
I snicker a little about this title.
It is good I left the date out- just in case it turns out NEXT year is the year of the Change Agent (at least we know it was not last year).
“The Year of the Change Agent” a post from David Armano gets the first change topic for 2012 spinning from blog to blog, discussion to discussion.
His points:
Seeds of change come from thoughts, behaviors, perception and outcome. Yes.
Why this year is the Year of the Change Agent
- Everyone is restless (in a good way)
- Companies have a TON of money stashed in the vault
- Some intense learning, evaluating and interchange happened last year
- Change Management has left its infancy
- Positive will rule this year
Everyone is restless (in a good way)
Fear (and fear mongering), pining for the past (that never actually happened) and living in a strictly tactical short term world will either kill you or make you strong. For this year I am predicting strong. Bouncing off of negative toward strength tends to make you a little edgy. That becomes urgency at some point- the GOOD kind of urgency that invites and stimulates participation. Get some make sense change going (which gives you permission to call yourself a Change Agent) and you are likely to jump ahead of your competitors.
Companies have a TON of money stashed in the vault
Change ain’t cheap.
Luckily companies have hoarded cash over the last couple of years. Some of that will get released this year. Things will change as a result. And someone will be the agent for that.
Some intense learning, evaluating and interchange happened last year
When you park senior externals and thought leaders in an environment where hustling work likely makes no sense (like a lot of the last two years, unless you downgraded your resume and profile for junior roles) they LEARN. They read, they write, they look at competitors, they draw on every napkin they can find and then they share- first with each other and eventually with clients and customers. This year is that year of sharing.
I can feel the gates opening with discussions that bounce from one place to another. I can see it in thoughtful blog posts (it is nice to not be rushed when writing). I hear it in the way senior consultants frame their explanations.
Some thinking and learning has been happening.
Change Management has left its infancy
I said to a model-oriented-follow-the-steps-exactly consultant the other day that past models and approaches were juvenile and current thought leaders are pulling Change Management into adulthood. The exchange did not go well. Those who have clung to CM status quo (that just seems so weird, how can you be a change agents if you hold onto the past?) are retiring. Maybe not this year, but their numbers are dwindling. Hopefully the young does and bucks keep the good stuff from the past as Change Agents.
Positive will rule this year
Enough of the negative.
Positive people get picked on (been there, live there), but have you noticed they have a lot of friends? Others reach out to them, connect with them, want to partner with them.
What if we just got every third person to be more positive?
Think of the change.
This year is the year of the Change Agent because nobody likes NO change. And certainly everyone dislikes change that goes backwards. We have had a lot of the no change and a good degree of the backward kind (both meanings intended). Now it is time for some people to carry the flag as Agents of Change.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, C level, CEO, change awareness, change management, engagement, External Consultant, strategy, vision to work
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
