|
|
Not the best of situations, but common, especially for smaller technology implementations. Don’t despair, change management can always be weaved in to project work. Here are some general areas to address-
Awareness
Of two types- illustrating the connection of individual work, task and effort to the overall goals (best end state) of the project and showing an understanding of the difficulties of change. What is the true intent of this project? Starting with effect on you, what are the things that will happen that slow your regular work down, bother you or force you to look at things differently? As the “overlapped” CM, address those in your interaction and communication.
Skills and Competencies
Put extra effort into making sure that the work for the project is given to the person best suited for the role. Each time you get a precise fit acknowledge that expertise in the individual. You can do that personally and/or include kudos in your communications.
The effect of the organization
Your company will have guidelines, measurement and processes that will inevitably get in the way of change. Each of those will be owned, have been designed by (or both) a person. They will be a stumbling block for you unless the change can make sense to them in some way. Take the time to connect and find that sensibility.
The effect of the culture
As with organizational processes there will be certain ways to get things done. Those “ways” will not be written down. If you are an employee they will be engrained in your approach to work. If you are an employee they could be invisible to you or you might acknowledge them and think they are no big deal. They are.
When it comes to culture you have to walk a fine line between getting things done (if it is change it is new and it probably does not fit into the old mold) and honoring. You will have to show how to do things differently thus skirting cultural issues. Or you will have to call out those patterns and get consensus on trying things differently. Or you will simply have to honor them and double your time frames.
If you are puzzled by this change management thing, but placed in a position to either be responsible for it or feel the need to layer it in keep this in mind in your approach-
Change means something new; new means doing things differently; guide stakeholders through that. Use yourself as a model and you will make a difference in the transition for the people involved and your business.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, change awareness, change management, Communication, Examples, Garrett Gitchell, Internal Consultant, PMO, resistance to change, stakeholders, vision to work
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
Historical approaches and a vertical perspectives are not working.
The resulting trend is horizontal change management. Horizontal is the positions of equal "rank" within verticals- like VP sales to VP IT. So there are up eight horizontals depending on the size of the organization.
The next trend is to place work in context with the whole. The whole being org. strategy, big picture, end state, direction of growth etc. Once a stakeholder knows how their work fits (which motivates them to participate) then they need to know when and with what effort that participation is needed.
The last, a true status quo breaker, is to place project work under the umbrella of a change process. This gives a longer view to strategic planning with a direct connection to work and results. Instead of a lot of time wasted infighting.
To practitioners this all may seem simplified.
For clients (mine are high level, but I am not sure that makes a difference) the endless pontificating, marketing of steps (8) and approaches and inability to connect people to business objectives is un-productive. They are looking for consultants that can translate the noise of change management into the parts – leadership, stakeholder connection, empowerment etc.
One trend that appeared in the last year or so- a result of the economy and the above paragraph, the need to be collaborative and break verticals/silos is the addition of an internal responsible for change. "Blank" of Change Management (or OE or OD or whatever they are choosing to call it). The problem is most of these are at the Director level, which exacerbates the vertical problem and skips the horizontal (VP’ and SVP’s) who are ultimately responsible for all change. It is also solely internal which leaves out, what I think is (biased yes) a crucial piece, the external influence.
Admittedly, I have seen VP titles so a few organizations understand what we are bantering back and forth.
Any trend that places work in context, communicates time/place and level of effort, encourages collaborative leadership and participation and weaves project management into the process will stand out and quickly go from a trend to accepted practice.
Technorati Tags: CCM, Change, change management, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, Examples, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, Insights, Internal Consultant, PMO, vision to work
My simple definition-
The process of moving an organization and its people to a different and better state.
A good change agent does this in a way that links the context of work to the bigger picture, enlivens the culture of the organization, makes the right lists for the right people and does so with an empathetic and business approach.
A really good change agent (here I am thinking exclusively external although with the right leverage and status it could be possible for an internal change agent) does all of the above while also improving operational efficiency, developing employees-especially future leaders and layering in a replicable process for the next corporate initiative.
Any large engagement, and I would say a lot of the well budgeted smaller ones, needs someone to fill these responsibilities. Finding people to do the implementing/project work (which is where you might have thought my answer was going to go) is the easy part.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, Buyer, CCM, CEO, Change, change management, change management consultant, change management strategy, Context, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, Insights, Internal Consultant, vision to work
There is a trend now that coincides, not a coincidence I think, with the change in the economy, of creating an internal role responsible for change in the organization.
I say disturbing not for the role creation (I laud that) but for the fact that those that I have seen posted- Farmers, Best Buy, Juniper Networks to name a few- are all Director roles. This indicates that the positions are seen as project management roles rather than strategic people positions. Not a pretty picture (and if you are a first horizontal executive considering this, take time to consider the picture before you start the artwork). One of the three now has changed the position to a Senior Director role and posted for a Director (as least they realized after the fact that they started too low in the hierarchy).
A reassuring trend would be to see this role tied in some way with innovation (Head of Innovation is one those fill-the-gaps roles appearing lately) and with the two letters VP attached.
There may well have been external influence that led to these posts. The roles could be change managers/agents as opposed to change management consultants. They could be in the final stages of creating the structure for an internal change entity, or not. The descriptions however said otherwise.
What could be the impetus, considering this is happening in this kind of tight business environment, is that resources have been pared down too much, cost savings are front and center for decisions, short term quick fixes rule and they are looking for a knight/lady in shining amour. Putting that savior in front of the charge is a quick way to make them either disappear or be ineffectual.
Considering the current environment it makes more sense to bring in an external to fill this role if you are not ready to do it with a long term view. They are used to leading the, often bruising, charge. (Ever noticed charge and change only need one letter switch- OK my first official digression…). If they are willing to overlook the whole system needs of change management they might actually provide the quick fixes so popular now. They could turn out to be the person who fills the Director role later when things “pick up”(created after the VP, of course).
They could help the charge become change with a little rearranging.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, CEO, Change, Change Design, change management, change management consultant, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, Insights, Internal Consultant, job roles
What is more important for whole organization change, design/structure or method/approach?
…tempting, but it will be more collaborative to let this have a life of its own.
This was a question I asked on LinkedIn that elicited some interesting responses
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yby9mu2 if you want the full thread
Spurred on by all the comments and Gail’s invitation to add more to the mix I have reopened this question. More context.
My view is that it is possible to build structure that gives opportunity for design to support the appropriate method and facilitate various approaches. At times, in stand alone project tracks the right side of the equation will prevail. When those tracks begin to stack up and overlap into programs design is necessary. When the programs are each pieces of corporate strategy and the paths to business objectives then all four design/structure/method/approach must be illuminated and led with skilled internal and external resources.
I have seen over and over method/approach bulldoze any chance for design/structure more times than I can count in my career. And, to be fair, I have seen design/structure squash any chance of quick change in project work.
Because I am often the translator from client to options for whole organization change putting these two, often disparate, perspectives in context is a constantly changing explanation. I was vague in the original question because I was hoping for twists and angles. We have some- Uday’s two sides of the coin, Raution’s fundamentals versus fixes, patience and persistence from Paul, member impact from Tim and perspectives from others.
I think change management is in its infancy (the word I usually use is immature which raises the cackles of method evangelists) for whole organization change. Huge initiatives which will change the environment of all and the behavior of many have annual burns in the tens of millions and yet no one can describe an end state. That is a recipe for lack of trust for the next change/budget/burn.
Whole organization change (transformational requiring change of behavior, attitude perspective and business models) requires a spiders web of horizontal, vertical and meandering connection, integration and collaboration. Which leads me back to the question again. To get that do we need better design, better execution or maybe just a concerted effort to explain/teach all this to clients?
Technorati Tags: approach, Buyer, CEO, Change, Change Design, change management, change management consultant, Design, End State, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, Insights, Internal Consultant, method, structure
Change Management big, broad and transformational requires every helpful resource possible, but not all resources. It requires leadership but not too much control. It requires energy and motivation, but with the right skill set and competencies at the right time ("championing" has gotten old and tired for stakeholders and those marked to be the cheerleaders) and it necessitates a balance of internal and external.
High level change consultants if they are effective, are focused on business objectives, value for the client and clear end states. Internal resources, change agents and the PMO along with the stakeholders, know the path (internal politics, established processes of communication and collaboration, reporting structures).
This kind of change (corporate, horizontal, transformational, enterprise etc etc) absolutely HAS to make sense. It may be with a grand future vision but it must be explainable and actionable.
The external helps craft explainable and works with the internal to translate to actionable.
The roles?
- The CEO supports in the same way they participate in the organization (versus being a figurehead).
- A high level external change consultant brought in by the CEO and partnering with the first horizontal
- A core team of change consultants with an internal and external mix- communication, senior consultants, intermediate consultants in a 1-2-2 ratio scaled accordingly
- Stakeholders throughout the organization who are interested in the change process, have skills to contribute and will naturally influence others (no not champions more like talented/willing participants)
Change that all encompassing will have many, many supporting roles each defined and rewarded by their skill and competency.
What is less clear cut are the ongoing leadership roles, from initiative to initiative over time, in this equation. This should be a VP role (I always hesitate using the word should, no hesitation this time) not a Director. If there are enough resources and change management is to be visible and effective there can be a Director in the equation. Success will come easier if the organization feels a connection to this person(s) and they can truly translate the visions of the CEO and first horizontal. Trust and credibility that can overpower internal politics and silo’s is the key to replicable success.
For a lively discussion on this and to get differing viewpoints here is a LinkedIn questions-
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yzyfcd8
GG
Technorati Tags: Buyer, CEO, Change, Change Design, change management, change management consultant, Director of Change, End State, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, Gate Keeper, Insights, Internal Consultant, stakeholders, VP of Change
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
|
|