|
|
I predict, thanks to reduction of employees, belt tightening and the effects of the economy a new obstacle for change- Apathy.
We are creeping up on an interesting flux period for organizations. Those who remain have lived in fear of losing their positions, have seen their work loads increase geometrically and are now years into seeing career paths disappear in front of their eyes. If they were “lucky” enough to remain they may also harbor guilt over “surviving”.
Those who were laid off, furloughed, trimmed, hacked (pick your synonym) are carrying bitterness over plans delayed (or destroyed). They have also had time to look at their situations and perhaps question the value of the “security” (I always say false- this environment supports my point) of full time employment.
Sometime soon the economy will pick up (and there are signs now).
We will have a mix of worn out and therefore apathetic current and incoming employees. Because many of the potential incoming individuals may well have gone their own way the pool might just be diminished. Which opens a window for those who stayed. Quitting is an instant fix for apathy. Finding a better position is a solution to that apathy. Demanding more to compensate for lack of security another.
Take heart though leaders of change. The step after this flux is a healthy energy partly from relief and partly to ensure individual survival the next time around.
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.
I have been doing some web work redesign and am officially feeling the pain that many of the stakeholders I work with go through. Web pages are now designed around CSS which is a linear process. I do mockups and graphic design work with Fireworks which works on a spatial/visual platform. I can mock up a web site in a couple of hours. I have spent days (Ok actually more than that) trying to figure out and understand CSS. System oriented focus that I have I wonder why the process can not be WSIWYG. And I feel for you stakeholders. My feet are dug in the sand for this new learning which is making getting to my end state exceedingly difficult.
Lets look at this like a mini behavior change problem.
Because of a “new” technology I am forced to do things differently which slows me down and eventually frustrates me. The new technology approaches work in a linear way. I am a visual spatial learner so even if an expert were to help me I would have serious difficulties understanding and using the needed approach. To get to what I do well and enjoy more (writing and making that available through the website) I must pass this gate. Just like many of the stakeholders out there passing through their own gates of change.
Here is the connection though. The ultimate end state, visibility and availability for my knowledge and prose, is crucial to my future and my work. The change facilitator in me must find a way to place significance on the CSS phase in relation to my end state. That is the context to Big Picture loop I constantly reinforce here. The connection is search optimization. CSS works much better than the image versions I create in Fireworks.
So perhaps the change facilitator in me finds a way to see the reasoning behind SEO to loop back to CSS. The “got you to participate” link for me with behavioral change is the Why of my 5 W’s. The why now makes sense and might just be powerful enough to overcome my resistance.
Have you every done the kid safety drill?
You know, the one where you get down on the ground and crawl around looking for potential danger? Of course, kid that I am at heart, I rolled, slid and somersaulted too…
The world is entirely different down there.
That, for awhile anyway, is the world of a toddler.
The people side of change has danger (real or imagined), hidden obstacles, an intense right in front focus, movement similar to a crawl (for its snail like pace) and an overall obliviousness to the presence of anything on this list. A good change agent does multiple versions of the hidden danger exercise. He/she must look from the perspective of a distracted and singularly focused child and from the adult who sees clearly the danger. Somewhere in between is the positive, practical, realistic description of the environment. There could very well be a different description for each person/stakeholder. The exercise might even change for a group of stakeholders. Think about a group of children crawling on that floor-different environment, especially if a few get ahead and stand up…
In keeping with our analogy-
If you think you will be able to corral that kid/stakeholder away from the danger (distract, keep busy, drag, pull, push, order…) then you are either very confident in your abilities or opening yourself up for the result. In the change process that result is projects that get delayed (should have fixed that outlet first), quality that deteriorates, stubbornness (which either increases the danger or leads to apathy-yes even with that kid on the ground) and rebellion (obvious with the kid, subtle and detrimental to the organization and culture for the stakeholder).
As the executive for an initiative you would do well to run this exercise of perspective through you head on your own before and after expecting it of your change agents. Get good at it and you will be able to fix danger early if it is real or call it out for what it often is- fear of the unknown. Right back to your role of describing end states and the journey/environment to get there.
There is a theory in quantum mechanics that it is possible the future influences the present (and possibly the past). I dug into it in a recent Discover Magazine article.
And did my best to understand the true meaning for quantum mechanics, but big picture mentality that I have…
I got to wondering how that might look for the change process.
It could mean there are multiple versions of result and effect. Basically versions of success and failure. Successful establishment of process and an adaptation of culture to speed change if the future has anything to do with it should be the hand that pulls in the present.
Less success would be fed by a status quo that requires to much time to adapt and therefore guides a less powerful approach to change.
Or look at it this way- in any large change initiative during the design of the end state imagine how the future would look if the present path was smooth. Do what it takes to not just progress toward and get to the end state but create a path to the future (that in this perfect world is feeding back in the moment).
From experience I would say there is a feeling of inevitability, a magic carpet of forward progress, on smooth exciting change initiatives that might just be guided by a different hand of time (or lack of time as a dimension).
Let’s say you are the executive that is in tune with both people and business.
You have had corporate initiatives that have been successful and a few not so. Because you are wise you see that that the successful initiatives were those where corporate strategy somehow tied neatly into individual and team motivation. And those not so successful were the ones where change was forced and resistance was almost guaranteed.
Success managed motivation. Un-success battled resistance.
Knowing the difference between clarifying the goal and then defining the path versus focusing on the process to change to a future state, you look for a consultant or firm to help with the next success. You look in a few forums, some LinkedIn questions and answers, a few websites, maybe you read a few change management books. And they all seem to have the second of our two perspectives. Why is that?
Internal politics tends tends to tug at change as revenue needs tend to tug at consulting firms. Process and task win out in both cases.
Most change management practitioners are enamored with process. They love to guide stakeholders toward their future state. They love models, theories and their own approaches. Secondary to process they love guiding people. They are not necessarily “people persons” (those lean toward training and communications) but they like the energy of collaboration. These are excellent qualities for the middle of change management. The middle of the organization, the middle of the change process itself and in terms of expertise the middle of the change practitioner skill set.
But you are an executive interested in high level usually transformational change. The type of change that is tied to strategy. That type of change is not typically seeded in the middle of the organization.
For high level strategic change management you need a consultant, yes initially you will benefit from the relationship with a single trusted individual, who is drawn toward business equal to people. Someone who is focused on goals, end states, results before process and task. You realize process and task are learnable while strategic skill is practiced and intuitive. And you have seen initiatives fail because they were wrapped up in the approach of the consulting firm rather than the culture of your organization.
Keep searching.
You are a knowledgeable, astute, ahead of the curve executive. Hold your ground and approach change as a business + people = results equation. Successful change management for the future is the alignment of resources and energy toward a goal. It is not managing the process of changing minds. Like you stakeholders have matured past that. They understand change is inevitable and often beneficial. They do not like it when you force change and they do not like it when you assume change is forced (overcoming resistance). What they do like are leaders who are clear about direction, choose the right path and articulate the goal. Getting there is actually the easy part.
But you knew all that right?
Our neighbors knocked down their house to build from scratch. From across the street both watching and chatting I witnessed a change process.
They saw a future state for the structure and for their family relationship.
They made the calculations and had the discussion necessary to define their end state.
The change was a result of difficulties in their current state.
And they knew there would be a transition.
I keep seeing change perspectives that strongly emphasize the need to analyze the current state and define the movement to the future state. Fingernails on a chalkboard that approach is to me. If you begin with the current state as an executive or change agent you will put parameters (status quo) around your change that may be difficult or impossible to overcome. By comparison if you define an end state and work back you can have positive change people can move toward.
This is a subtle but distinct difference that only a few understand.
And I think it is why change “fails” and change management is seen as a negative.
Unknowingly they followed an end state approach.
Suppose they had followed the historical change approach (things like urgency, fighting resistance, a mini readiness assessment and current to future state, etc)?
Then they would have looked at the current state and decided what to keep.
In a way they could not have an end state because by keeping they force themselves into simply a future state.
By keeping they increase both the length and the difficulty of the transition.
And there is a very good chance that difficulty increases labor costs and puts both a current and future stress on their family relationship (all the systems will fall apart soon after they finish).
They have a beautiful house that fit smoothly into their budget, was not too far off the timeline and they are happy (and will be into the future with limited maintenance).
No you can’t always tear down and start from scratch (buildings/systems or people/cultures), but you can often move to the lot next door and do something similar.
There is a laundry list (which will be a fun post-stay tuned) of things that cause Change Management initiatives to fail. The number one problem and the answer I always give to the question, “Why do you think change management fails?, is that stakeholders never get the understanding of how their work will fit in to the Big Picture.
In fact set aside Change initiatives this might be the number one reason for lack of employee motivation in general.
So why does this happen?
It takes empathy and time (=$). Both of which are in short supply.
What if you as an owner of a change initiative spent money to create time to develop empathy? Knowing, of course, that if this truly is the way to enhance your change process the money will come right back in operational effectiveness.
You would first improve your ability to draw the Big Picture, then you would be empathetic and define that for different individuals which would help you to see connections from stakeholder perspectives. The test of your new found secret ability would be to ask a random employee why they are doing the work they are doing and what effect it will have on the outcome. If they give you a description of the outcome (End State) you get a “B”. If they can explain how that would not happen without their work effort then you have become a very rare leader.
The first step for effective Change Management is to define the End State.
Always knowing what the change will look like, feel like and be effective for underlies the whole change process.
You will have many different versions catered to different stakeholders and stakeholder groups. Keeping this in mind, the key to successful roll out of change is to work back from those definitions. Once you have a clear idea of the End State then you can determine why the change makes sense, where the effects of the process might land, who will need to be involved and at what level of participation, what needs to happen, how and when it will take place.
Look at your current change initiatives. Odds are this step was skipped to save time and money. Soon you will be forced to insert it somehow costing time and money. When Vision to Work is brought in to an initiative in the middle the primary reason is that no one, including the executive owner, seems to know what this change will look like when it is done.
The next step in the downward spiral is the loss of “why”. That is typically when the consultants are sent home and things slowly revert back-dooming your next change initiative.
|
|
