|
|
A discussion popped up today in a LinkedIn group about the “owner” of the change. I always find these discussions interesting for their range of perspective and for the consistency that many hold to assumptions and narrow methods. As a client that would make me a little nervous since I would hope my external change management consultant sees through common change foibles.
Some answers-
- The executive responsible for the change
- The change agent
- The passed to leader (usually a director)
- All the stakeholders
- The CEO
- The change management consultants
My take? It depends on the size and nature of the change initiative. The bigger and more horizontal the higher up ownership MUST go. The more specific and functional the closer ownership gets to the change management consultants (because it becomes more project and less change, management).
It would be nice if there was always ownership at the stakeholder level (the executives being part of that group). But to use the “own” analogy most often those stakeholders are renters. If you can get them to sign a short or, better, long term lease you can build a neighborhood.
As an external contracting high in an organization my answer would be the spot where the money comes from. Selfishly that makes my role easier by eliminating gate keepers and shining a light high for the significance of change management.
It is rare though to genuinely have one owner. Even when the money/budget is taken into consideration. Success comes easier with shared ownership. I personally measure that with my clients with a right time, right place, right amount of motivation gauge. Especially for long term initiatives an ebb and flow of ownership can be powerful. It is very hard even for the financier, actually especially for them, to go the distance with pride of ownership.
Finally, some change consultants/agents feel they are the owners of the change. They feel their tools and templates have the power to carry the initiative to its conclusion (actually that happens it is just not the conclusion they planned). They are confusing implementation with the change as a whole and they are falling prey to wanting to be a cultural piece of the change. The loss of arms distance (admittedly hands distance for engagements approaching the two year threshold) sands down an external change management consultants influence.
I feel it is my responsibility to own the nature of change. I am the portal for interpretation, knowledge, mediation and exchange. I do not know it all, but I should try hard to know of all. I am the landlord who takes pride in the tenants enjoyment of the property.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, CEO, change excercise, change management, change management consultant, engagement, external, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, Gate Keeper, Internal Consultant, owner of the change, stakeholders, vision to work
Is change management art or science?
Do artists have techniques, repeatable processes, templates (if only in their minds eye)?
Do technicians think through their plan before beginning the work/experiment?
The answer is, it is both, because art itself often has scientific components while science must look for new horizons.
Beware science that always follows proscribed instructions and art that has no process.
As an executive change owner beware the “change management scientists”.
They are there to spread their wings to increase revenue, market their tools and get to their own end state rather than yours. Odds are they will not be “good” with people and you will then need the best of the “change management artists”. Good art is not cheap.
The science part of change management- of late an intense pursuit of a few change management practitioners- works well within the implementation of the change plan. The closer the tasks get to project management the more streamlined and templated the process can be. Leverage the best of the artists to guide the scientists (not the other way around which is more common).
Those who yearn to create across the board consistency for change management are forgetting clients see their organizations, people, processes, industries and structure as unique. Creating the grand change management template flies in the face of a core client perspective. Not a good mix for the initial contracting- unless the work is directed to someone other than the true owner of the change…It then becomes a procurement process which feeds right into the consultants “spread their wings” approach.
My advice do not feed the hand that bites you.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, Buyer, Change, change awareness, change failure, change management, change management strategy, End State, Executive, external, External Consultant, Fees, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, Value, vision to work
An idea starts, a strategy forms, a new tool appears. Change will follow.
In order to get from beginning to end of the change that original seed will have to go through what I call Translation. For change to be successful that seed will have to be turned into work. To get the work to happen, context for the stakeholders will have be connected to big picture. Or if they are instantly on board their list of work will have to be presented to them. Getting there is the translation.
This being the most important aspect of Corporate Change Management it is also the number one reason for failure (politics aside).
Think of both sides of the equation in your organization and with your own previous change initiatives. Grand idea, great strategy and no motivation? Tons of energy from the stakeholders, lots of work and no direction? Or the worst, a clear picture, a decent connection to the stakeholders and then a big correction midstream?
Spend and budget for the time and money needed to, at least, clarify the vision and define the end state. If you have the political capital go the next step and make sure you put in place the resources needed to make translations on the way. Hint a project manager will not take the time nor have the empathetic perspective needed to accomplish this. The same can probably be said of an internal consultant, except when they are being groomed for leadership. This is an excellent development role. Especially in connection to an external high level change consultant who can mentor and guide (and coach for false steps).
Empathy goes hand and hand with translation. If you can put yourself in the stakeholders shoes, or be guided to that understanding with the help of a consultant, you will be able to make that translation. Remember “Why”, the missing word in a lot of executive vocabulary.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, Buyer, CCM, CEO, Change, change management consultant, Context, End State, Executive, external, External Consultant, Insights, internal, Internal Consultant, stakeholders
When change fails it is because of two reasons, politics or disconnected strategy.
And the second is often because of the first so now we are down to one reason.
A good experienced high level CM consultant is intensely focused on the end state. So when politics get in the way of that path they will address, mediate, argue through, dialogue and debate to keep the change momentum moving forward. In fact when they are really good they are ahead of the politics (but maybe that is another post). They have been there before in many places on different occasions (which would probably not look too good on an internal resume). It is much easier to contract with them. And much easier to let them go (which is why the good ones at first glance seem expensive-it is a very risky role-when done correctly). As a senior executive client you will have someone who will go where you can’t, won’t or hesitate to go in your organization. In my case that also means pointing out operational improvements and savings which covers that above “expensive” and often pays for the role and then some.
An internal CM consultant on the other hand must play the politics of evaluation, performance and reward. Strike one. They are also never, in my experience, placed high enough in the organization to have the needed credibility, leverage and, well political pull that is required of large scale change. Strike two. And because the politics (there it is again) of compensation typically requires a trail of deliverables (many that would never pass my “Why?” test) they will spend an inordinate amount of time creating tools, assessment, evaluations etc. Expensive-strike three.
OK. Self serving and harsh. Guilty I am.
So how about both?
You can cover the external cost by using a value-based-tied-to-business objectives contract. And you can leverage the external to develop internal competencies (an ethical consultant will insist on this, any firm that is focused on revenue and footprints will not, sorry to insinuate that is unethical, but, well,…). You now have a resource to use to build future capabilities internally. Short engagements, retainers, help with individual projects from the external can be a cost effective way to address development later without having the in house expense.
The advantages of internal CM consultants. Only fair, right?
- They are deliverable based
- They are good at politics in the middle of the organization
- In the short run they can be cheaper
- They have loyalty to the organization (you hope) for the motivation of others
And finally a third option-
Use an external for an upcoming large scale change, build a change management entity concurrently and take advantage of the positives of both while successfully completing a “pilot” change initiative. And walk away with a structure that can be used again for the next corporate strategy implementation.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, CEO, Change, change management consultant, consultant, deliverables, End State, external, External Consultant, Fees, internal, Internal Consultant, organizational politics, value based billing
|
|