|
|
In business/life people have to work together to figure out, to make a plan, to accomplish tasks to get to results. I start with that assumption and follow with the assumption that every organization has a process and a structure to get to the results sentence period.
Is this naive? As in having or expressing innocence and credulity.
It turns out the process and the structure are always there. The effectiveness and application of both is the issue. Enter Operational Change Management. Everyone who has anything to do with CM will agree that at its core it is about illustrating a goal, having energy behind the goal, getting participation, following the change path and reaching an end state. Well look at that. Those steps match perfectly with the core operational steps. And I might add look like the hundreds of models I have seen out there.
If it is this simple why is it that it never (yes I chose that word on purpose) happens?
Each of the steps in my first paragraph have major stumbling blocks thanks to people and money. CM done well, at higher levels connects the two. CM that is not done well seems to only address the people (and process). I have yet to see an organization (and few practitioners with the understanding and visibility needed) that can weave this connection.
Maybe it is just too big a task? Maybe it is because organizations do not have anyone, or any entity, responsible for the gluing? Maybe it is because the attempt is either first made internally without external help or done solely on a model from an external influence? Am I naive in thinking it is entirely possible to weave this people, process, money and method web?
I am trying to think of the title for this operational change management person…
VP of the Big Picture?
SVP of PM (people and money)?
Den mother (father)?
Ah, you say, what about VP or Organizational Effectiveness, VP of People, COO? First one is process, second is people, third one is close. CEO… maybe (in a naive perfect world).
I am not going to work toward an answer here. A solution though is running around in my head since we have laid out the root causes… I can just picture being able to pour something out of a can and have it spread over and through the organization. The something would carry languaging, process, structure, collaboration, method and B-12 to all the right places.
Change can flow like water.
While the practitioners and internal leaders I meet are focusing on addressing the difficulties and specifics of change I find myself illustrating how change should work in organizations.
It should flow like water.
That “water” carries the change itself forward as well as communication, collaboration, compromise, structural and procedural adjustment and business relations based on skill and responsibility. When something needs to happen to move toward the end state I make the connections to, in effect, clear the path for the flow.
Taking the analogy further-
The flow will redirect around the rocks if it is powerful enough.
In fact it can cover and inundate the rock when participation is high and the change makes sense.
It will carve new routes forward.
While touching one spot others will be touched since water (and positive sensible, responsible change) is always connected; always moves in patterns.
Does your change act more like a waterfall? Perhaps beautiful and refreshing at first sight, but crushing, devastating and forceful in a single direction upon further inspection…
My oxymoron for the day.
Because of the nature of change (and good innovative business for that matter), as soon as something is defined as a best practice it is probably no longer best. And will quickly become too practiced.
Disclosure- I have never liked this term. It tends to be either an internal organic way to justify status quo or an external effort to find the mix that a client will pay for. The first I see all the time now in organizations; the second is a common way to start a firm (and I can think of one company right off the bat in the change area).
Running a survey (in an of itself fraught with problems thanks to bias in the design of questions) for “best practices” and then creating a model around that is like taking a picture of a frozen moment in time and expecting it to happen again. Not going to.
And whose “best practices”?
For CM that could be a touchy feely, ‘”that was great” response, a feeling that things now move quicker (a nice feeling , but in no way an indicator of overall success), a comment on being acknowledged and/or a subtle justification of tireless effort. It would not be hard to create a set of questions right now, throw it out to a few senior executives and a lot of middle of the organization project and HR leaders and come up with some “best practices”. And I bet I could sell come models, templates and gain some marketing edge with the results.
Having done so I would have to hope that someone does not follow me to measure results. Because “best practices” for change management would first have to effect both speed and quality of business outcomes. A template in the middle of an organization (or worse function) without leadership support and a distinct tie to business outcomes is, well, just a template for something else…
So, in all fairness, what are Change Management Best Practices?
- Making a connection to the last stakeholder in the line (customer maybe?) early- even if it may be years before you connect again
- Asking why for everything
- Answering why for everything
- Engaging stakeholders more for expertise and distinct perspective than as an invite to the party because “everyone needs to be included”
- Leadership accountability
- An external and internal mix
- An external CM practitioner at the highest level of the change
- A horizontal whole system perspective
- Clear lines of communication, collaboration and task/project work that pay no deference to organizational structure- they appear (as in be there for the work and potentially disappear when that is satisfied) to get things done.
I could go on, but now that I have defined them they may need to be tweaked- that is after all the nature of change.
A few things I have seen recently that must be blamed on the economy because they would not have made much sense two years ago-
- Big firms (those beginning with A, D, P, etc.) appear to be morphing into staffing firms. The evidence? I personally have been contacted five times this year for leading roles as a subcontractor. Smart business or vicious cost cutting showing its ugly head?
- Roles are reappearing. One comical example I can think of is a role that I have been contacted for 15 times over the last 2 years on 5 separate occasions. Please do not tell me that means a 4 consultant burn only to return to the original senior (read qualified) consultants.
- Open and shut and open again and repeat, contracts and roles. I like to keep an eye on posted positions and stay connected to recruiters because, wise or not, that is where a lot of change management resourcing begins. The last two years has had a whole lot of trolling.
- Internal change management positions at higher levels. Dare I say even VP? The internal roles almost always appear at the same time as the requisitions for the sub contractor. In other words the cart is standing alone well in front of the horse.
So what’s all this about?
It is an interesting combination of client missteps that occur in any environment thanks to a low level of understanding about the change management big picture and an economy that has put tremendous pressure on pricing (with, at times, a forgetfulness about value). Some strange circles have appeared-
Client looks for consultants at extremely adjusted prices, client gets what they pay for or cannot get what they need, client uses third party (and erodes prices further for the consultant which exacerbates the clients original problem), client gives up on change management, giving up turns out to not be a good option, finally client goes back to original consultant with a more reasonable rate. Side note- original consultant is now faced with a drop in the middle change engagement, the most difficult.
Another loop. Big firm needs to charge exceptionally high prices (literally and compared to value). Client thinks there may be an individual or boutique firm they could use, but fear wins out (and those big firms are excellent scapegoats). Economy hits. Now difference in price is especially noticeable. Client contracts with third parties or posts requisitions while big firm takes huge hit in revenue. Big firm strips ranks. Look inside the loop now- client is requisitioning the people, through third parties, who would have come through the big firms. As the loop closes the big firms begin to contact outside consultants (that would be those laid off from the other firms and the senior independent consultants that were part of the mix in the first place). Big firm has effectively become an expensive staffing agency. Client has added an extra layer (because believe it or not the big firm uses a fourth party) in a price/budget sensitive environment.
I throw all this out because it is important and comical at the same time.
Part of the reason these loops appear (in bad times and good) is that CM roles are often thrown into the middle of the organization. For the contracting process, for leading large initiatives and for timing that throw is a bad fit for CM. In the middle lies price sensitivity. Price sensitivity is not where the senior, experienced, whole picture (people and business) sit.
Excellent consultants, priced reasonably and loaded with potential value, are a search and click away. The smart ones, in this price sensitive environment wrapped up extra value in their existing price structures. Smart clients realized that and capitalized on the extras (instead of trolling in the shallows). Smart client into the future means eliminating the supply chain and contracting directly with the resource that will guide the project (in fairness that could actually be a big firm- a couple of years ago). Those resources may even have the exact same network as the third parties (with much stronger relationships) for the supplementary implementation roles.
This explanation (OK maybe my first official rant) looks a lot like the process that takes place with change initiatives. Everything too late, everything narrow focused.
As a practitioner I often stand back and think, “doesn’t anyone notice how silly these dances are?”
Change Management is a dance between keeping that which is comfortable and worthwhile and opening up new possibilities, profit and value.
Think of the status quo as a fenced in field. Despite the fact that the fence can easily be knocked down there is still safety. There is at least the appearance of, safety.
Now add a gate that can let in new influences.
You might also want to use the gate for letting things out (or free?).
Does that gate need a lock? And if you think it does I would question the strength (and need for) the fence first.
Change in your organization and the “management” of that ebb and flow is a powerful leverage point for using the gate and its path. Change that acknowledges and uses the status quo for positive profit and improvement is change that people follow. The smart change agent is a little like the sentry at the gate balancing all that can pass or should not pass in either direction.
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).
Change is so loaded with energy you can almost smell the flame.
What will you, along with your change practitioner need to do to start, contain, fuel and manage that fire?
Start-
Change can begin spontaneously from hidden sparks of energy, It can be the result of an external environmental influence, like a lightning bolt in nature. Or it can be a perfectly built campfire ready for a match to begin the controlled burn. Be aware of how change can, will and could start in your organization and take the steps to have resources and process to deal with the different catalysts for energy.
Contain-
The fire begins and there is very often little time for precise control. That is the nature of organizational change since it involves individuals seasoned and not (in our case seasoning does not necessarily mean the wood will burn bright). Laying down appropriate borders though can ring the fire with protection. In an organization that may be separating the functional tasks needed to build to the end state as project streams.
Fuel-
My personal favorite. When we have our backyard s’more fests friends are surprised at how easy it is for me to light the match and quickly have a perfect campfire. Easy it is not for it requires a balance of quick combustion (paper), something to carry and hold the flame (kindling), larger pieces to sustain the heat and energy and oxygen (which the fire can quickly suck away and extinguish). Change in an organization requires an idea, a senior champion, middle of the organization empathy and management skills and money and resources directed appropriately.
Manage-
Once the fire is lit, contained and fed when needed there is often a little time to sit back and enjoy the power and beauty of the coals and flame. Well contained and with available fuel the fire can be extended, increased or if necessary squelched. In the organization phases of the change process can run as separate fires of their own to be joined with or passed on to the next. As long as the agents strategic and implementary understand the end state and the connections in time and place that must occur the fire can be managed.
What does the energy behind change look like in your organization?
Is anyone tending the fire?
It amazes me how difficult it is for clients (and most of the consultants I have observed) to put themselves at the end of an initiative or project and look back toward the present. Doing so is an entirely different perspective-which feeds an entirely different approach. It surprises those clients and consultants to see that this simple change of viewpoint can reveal many of the human obstacles, illustrate gaps in the fabric of the organization and pave the way to a much straighter path to success.
Pick any change, stand at the end state and ask yourself what it would take to be there. Remember you have to be looking back. This isn’t about the steps to get there; it is about how it is different and why.
Some things to consider-
Was it a transformation to get there or a gradual process of adaptation?
Did the journey seriously get in the way of the day to day; or did it actually make some things easier?
Were the covered deficiencies of your organization and its culture uncovered?
What did the path to get there do to the way the stakeholders interact to accomplish business objectives?
Anyone get promoted along the way?
Can you draw a horizontal line anywhere in your org. chart that did not exist before you started?
Anyone dig their feet in the sand only to release them and lead the charge?
Could you have someone do a case study for this that would bring you more talent?
And finally- Are you patting yourself on the back or rubbing your eyes?
Added note: I looked for a picture looking from the horizon to the sand of the beach to compliment my previous post and out of over 14,000 beach, wave and sand pictures there was not a single shot toward the sand (minus deserted tropical islands, but that is a different analogy). I am not sure what that says other than reinforcing the fact that standing on the horizon and looking back rather than filling in the present to future gaps or being a “futurist” is not an easy thing to do.
Dandelions in a lawn can be beautiful, but is that what you intended? Change Management sprouting up all over your organization can be invigorating, but is that what you are looking for? An over-fertilized lawn looks lush and green, but is it healthy?
I have seen and heard, lately, of quite a lot of organizations who have change management processes, teams and mini-functions springing up like weeds on a spring day. Like dandelions that can be a beautiful sight to see, until you realize the competing perspectives and approaches are effecting your operations (that thick green lawn you should have been looking for).
There are countless approaches to the “implementation” of change and they can often be pursued simultaneously in one organization. At the highest levels though, for the strategic change process, it makes sense to have an approach that is consistent, repeatable and customized to your culture. If an individual practitioner or a function is more comfortable with a specific method it can be weaved in to the high level process.
What happens instead is that projects, initiatives, then programs and eventually multiple programs all with a direct link to corporate strategy pop up like weeds. The reaction of the middle of the organization leaders is the same as the suburban homeowner with dreams of the perfect lawn. “I have to do something quick, with urgency to address the weeds”. The result can be something like over-fertilizing to make the lawn greener. Which of course the weeds love! The same in the organization- function 1 has one we need one too.
It is much easier to address this phenomenon early rather than later.
Developing an approach to build ideas into strategy, translate them into business objectives and smoothly roll them out as implementations can save an immeasurable amount of time, money and resources. Continuing to build on that foundation- while monitoring the stray sprouting weeds- can facilitate innovation, speed development and roll out and make communication connections that tie strategy, business and people together in an effective way.
|
|
